How Has Politics Affected The Music Industry?
Legislation
Legislation is put in place to regulate and shield what the public are able to view freely and legally. Many laws have been put in place that the public do not agree with but a lot of them are put in place because our governments want to protect us from harmful content.
Laws Affecting Music Production And Consumption
Copyright
Copyright is legal protection given to original works such as compositions or songs, lyrics, records, poems, books, films and TV shows.
This is similar to a patent however, A patent is given to an invention as oppose to copyright, which refers more to expressive ideas. For a song to be protected by copyright all it needs is to be original and to be fixed. Fixed means that there are ways of proving the song is yours. If you sing a song in public but you haven't recorded or written it down somewhere, there is nothing stopping someone else stealing your song. Once the song has been Fixed, the musician may wish to register the song with the Copyright Office however, this is not necessary as they will automatically have copyright protection.
The owner of a Copyright is legally able to reproduce and manufacture the work, distribute copies to the public and show their work in public. The writer of a song owns the rights to perform that song in public, so whenever a song is performed on the X Factor, the royalties goes to the writer, not the owners of the sound recording. Without the authorization of the copyright owner, legally, no one can do any of these things.
Sound Recordings And Musical Works
There are two types of copyright in music. There is the sound recording, which is a work comprised of recorded sound that could be anything from the music on a CD to the MP3 on a laptop, and there is the composition copyright, which is both the music and lyrics. Knowing the difference between these two types of copyright is very important. If a songwriter writes a song, they will be paid for the composition copyright. If a singer like Justin Bieber were to record the song and play it live, then his record company would own the copyright to the sound recordings. The two copyrights benefit from different types of revenue. A performer, In this instance Justin Bieber, would have the right to the royalties made from the sound recordings. This would be the revenue made from CD/Record sales. The big money is made when the song is your own. The Songwriter would have the right to the publishing royalties made from Radio, Internet streaming (Spotify) and most importantly live performances. In order to take legal action against someone stealing your work without permission, the works should be registered with the appropriate Copyright Service.
Composers will own their works for 70 years after their death. This means they can leave their works to anyone they want to, in their Will. Performers will receive royalties for 70 years after the song is released. It was 50 years up until the new copyright legislation titled 'Cliffs Law' came into place. It was named after its most high-profile campaigner, Cliff Richards. The Beatles, Cliff Richards and The Kinks would all be running out of recording royalties by this point.
Obviously writing your own music is the best way to make more money as you'll be paid for both the publishing royalties and Sound Recording royalties. Sadly, most artists in the charts do not write their own music. Without the different copyrights, songwriters would not receive sufficient payment for their contribution to a song. Without the copyright legislation, people would be ripping off songs from all over the world.
This is of course beneficial to the artists that still want to be making money from the songs they performed 50 years ago, but this stops the public being able to sample these songs. Sampling may not be agreed upon by many musicians, but it's a form of creativity. A digital, micro-cosmic reproduction of what those musicians were doing in the 1950's and 60's.
This is similar to a patent however, A patent is given to an invention as oppose to copyright, which refers more to expressive ideas. For a song to be protected by copyright all it needs is to be original and to be fixed. Fixed means that there are ways of proving the song is yours. If you sing a song in public but you haven't recorded or written it down somewhere, there is nothing stopping someone else stealing your song. Once the song has been Fixed, the musician may wish to register the song with the Copyright Office however, this is not necessary as they will automatically have copyright protection.
The owner of a Copyright is legally able to reproduce and manufacture the work, distribute copies to the public and show their work in public. The writer of a song owns the rights to perform that song in public, so whenever a song is performed on the X Factor, the royalties goes to the writer, not the owners of the sound recording. Without the authorization of the copyright owner, legally, no one can do any of these things.
Sound Recordings And Musical Works
There are two types of copyright in music. There is the sound recording, which is a work comprised of recorded sound that could be anything from the music on a CD to the MP3 on a laptop, and there is the composition copyright, which is both the music and lyrics. Knowing the difference between these two types of copyright is very important. If a songwriter writes a song, they will be paid for the composition copyright. If a singer like Justin Bieber were to record the song and play it live, then his record company would own the copyright to the sound recordings. The two copyrights benefit from different types of revenue. A performer, In this instance Justin Bieber, would have the right to the royalties made from the sound recordings. This would be the revenue made from CD/Record sales. The big money is made when the song is your own. The Songwriter would have the right to the publishing royalties made from Radio, Internet streaming (Spotify) and most importantly live performances. In order to take legal action against someone stealing your work without permission, the works should be registered with the appropriate Copyright Service.
Composers will own their works for 70 years after their death. This means they can leave their works to anyone they want to, in their Will. Performers will receive royalties for 70 years after the song is released. It was 50 years up until the new copyright legislation titled 'Cliffs Law' came into place. It was named after its most high-profile campaigner, Cliff Richards. The Beatles, Cliff Richards and The Kinks would all be running out of recording royalties by this point.
Obviously writing your own music is the best way to make more money as you'll be paid for both the publishing royalties and Sound Recording royalties. Sadly, most artists in the charts do not write their own music. Without the different copyrights, songwriters would not receive sufficient payment for their contribution to a song. Without the copyright legislation, people would be ripping off songs from all over the world.
This is of course beneficial to the artists that still want to be making money from the songs they performed 50 years ago, but this stops the public being able to sample these songs. Sampling may not be agreed upon by many musicians, but it's a form of creativity. A digital, micro-cosmic reproduction of what those musicians were doing in the 1950's and 60's.
Stakeholders
Stakeholders are people with interest in a business. It can be individuals or organisations that will be affected by the success or failure of the business. In a business, typical stakeholders would be; the owner, who wants the business to make a profit, the workers who want to earn a salary, suppliers who want the business to continue buying their products and the customers, who want to buy high value products at low costs. When we talk about stakeholders within the music industry, it is not much different. This is because the music industry is one giant business. below are the main stakeholders in the music industry. Others would be non-profit organisations such as Creative Commons (CC). CC are an organisation devoted to make works legal to build upon without having a lawsuit forced upon the public.
Sampling and Digital Media
Soundcloud, Youtube and Bandcamp. These are three of the biggest media platforms for musicians to upload and listen to music. I have already spoken about the laws that are related to copyright and how these laws can stop musicians stealing songs they don't own the rights to, but should these laws stop creativity among musicians? Should we be subject to a lawsuit even if we are not financially benefiting from the song? This is what the big labels are doing. They are taking away our musical freedom and telling us we have to pay to enjoy and share our creativity.
In 1993, US3 sampled Herbie Hancock's 'Cantaloupe Island' and re-titled it 'Cantaloop (Flip Fantasia)'. Hancock's lawyers informed him of the the copyright but Hancock enjoyed the sample and allowed them to go ahead with the release without payment to Hancock. In 2013, Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams And T.I released Blurred Lines. The Artists were accused of copyrighting Marvin Gaye's song 'Got To Give It Up'. The song shares a lot of similarities such as the groove, the melody and the high pitched vocals. Thicke and Pharrell were fined $7.4 million for the copyright. Marvin Gaye's children gave this statement With the digital age upon us, the threat of greater infringement looms for every artist. It is our wish that our dad’s legacy, and all great music, past, present, and future, be enjoyed and protected, with the knowledge that adhering to copyright standards assures our musical treasures will always be valued. |
|
I really think this is the perfect statement. We live in a generation where people can sample anything they want. From speeches, to film lines, to songs. Paolo Nutini released his song Iron Sky in 2014, using a sample of Charlie Chaplin from the film 'The Great Dictator'.
I think it is understandable for songwriters and performers to want royalties for their hard work, however, I do not agree with 'Cliffs Law'. I do not believe the law should have been extended to 70 years as this weakens the chance of the public making music. It weakens creativity. Times have changed. We grew up with this music, we learnt the songs, and we have learnt how to create our own songs. As a child everyone loves writing their own songs, but everyone has their own talents. Some people can write and orchestrate a song from scratch. Some people need a template to build from. With the rise of technology and the ease of production, anyone can create a song. The difference between now and then, is we have everything fed with a silver spoon. In the 1950's you had to write your own music and record from scratch. Although I agree with the owners of the copyright being able to restrict their music, I do not agree that legal action should be taken against people who simply want to share the music with the world. |
PropagandaPropaganda is information that is used primarily to influence an audience and further a scheme. It is used by Organisations and Governments to promote policies.
Propaganda is also used in music, but you wouldn't suspect it of being propaganda. National anthems are usually songs which portray a country as great and expresses their superiority. The British National anthem titles our Queen as Noble. The American Nation Anthem states 'And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Expressing love and pride for their country. |
|
|
Anti-Thatcher
![Picture](/uploads/6/3/0/3/63034725/1985170.jpg?288)
Margaret Thatcher was the first female prime minister. She was in office from 1979-1990. Her reputation, as many know, was not perceived to be the best. She was best known for the destruction of Britain's traditional industries through her attacks on labor organizations such as the miner's union. In 1984, miners were facing coal pit closures and pay restraints. By March over 142,000 mine workers had gone on strike. The strike ended in March 1985 after a vote to return back to work. Mine workers were previously known to have a strong union, however, this was seen as a victory for Thatcher and The Conservative Party. This allowed Thatcher to reinforce her 'Fiscal Policy' which uses government revenue to help change the economy. In addition, she was widely criticized for the privatization of social housing and public transport. More than £29 billion was raised from the sale of nationalised industries and a further £18 billion from the sale of council houses. She was also disliked due to her support of capital punishment and for increasing interest rates to control inflation but consequently causing mass unemployment. In the early days of her rein, she was rather popular. She sent British troops to the Falklands to defend the British territory from Argentina in April 1982. By June Argentina had surrendered.
Thatcher was an ally of U.S president Ronald Reagan, a fellow Conservative. They both shared a distrust in communism. In 1984, the Irish Republic Army attempted an assassination by planting a bomb at the conservative conference, however, she was unharmed and continued with the conference the next day.
Thatcher was an ally of U.S president Ronald Reagan, a fellow Conservative. They both shared a distrust in communism. In 1984, the Irish Republic Army attempted an assassination by planting a bomb at the conservative conference, however, she was unharmed and continued with the conference the next day.
|
This is a song written by Irish busker Alan Dean. The song is an Anti-Thatcher folk song with sarcastic humour declaring hatred for Thatcher.
|
Censorship
|
Typically, censorship is when forms of media edit words, lyrics or images, but it is also the suppression of harmful or politically incorrect content. In the modern day, censorship is mainly used for radio and video edits of songs and music videos. for example ‘Blurred Lines’ by Robin Thicke has a very provocative video however, they censored and re-created it for a younger audience, as to not offend any viewers. Even back in 1965 when The Rolling Stones released 'I Can't Get No Satisfaction', radio stations refused to play it because of the sexual implications, and In 1968 the doors released 'Unknown Soldier' but was also banned because of the anti-war theme. Censorship over the passed 60 years, I think, has become progressively worse with vigorous governments enforcing it on the public. After the 911 attacks in 2001, certain songs, which included words such as fire, Hell and falling, were banned to censor it from sensitive people in mourning.
In 1985 The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) introduced the Parental Advisory Label which is put on records, chosen by the record companies, that show explicit content such as profanity and violence. This was supposed to be used to deter underage members of the public, but what this really did was make the record look more appealing. Rappers wanted this on their albums because it meant they were rebels. This was obviously an attempt to create self-censorship however, it may have done the opposite. I Think Censorship has a place in society. It can protect the public from potentially harmful content such as violence, sex or profanity. On the other hand, censoring music can withhold brilliant songs from the public. Videos and music videos are banned from Youtube but only in certain countries. This means you can watch videos, depending on what your government see's as fit for viewing. I don't think it's right that your location determines what you can listen to and view. |
Protest Music
Protest music is used by social movements to express their disagreement or support for a cause. Typically these movements would include women's suffrage, labor, anti-war, feminism, anti-homophobic and racial discrimination. Protest music in the United States came about in the 19th century due to the uproar of anti-slavery protests. In 1835 an Abolitionist hymn was written, although the origins are unknown. It was sung at slavery meetings to protest against and shame the partakers of slavery. In the United Kingdom slavery was abolished by 1808 however, the United States continued to contribute massively to the slave trade until 1865.
M.I.A -Born Free https://vimeo.com/11219730 |
in 1915, Joe Hill was wrongly accused of murder and robbery. He had been coincidentally shot at the same time as the robbery and when this had been reported, police searched Hills home and found the same bandanna that the robbers had been described as wearing. He was executed by a firing squad. A poem was written about him by Alfred Hayes in 1930. In 1936 the poem was turned into a song by Earle Robinson and the song has been sung at protests by Joan Baez, Bob Dylan and Pete Seeger. It is beneficial that big names were playing these songs because it meant more people could hear about what happened.
In 1984 The Specials released ‘Free Nelson Mandela’ to fight Nelson Mandela’s imprisonment. Mandela was freed Feb. 11, 1990, This meant a lot of people would find out who Mandela was and joined the Anti-Apartheid Movement. This was an organisation who fought the segregation in South Africa. Now, in the 21st century, we have a much more subtle approach to protest through the use of music. In 2010 M.I.A released a song titled 'Born Free'. The music video shows a group of Gingers being forced into a van, violently. They are then forced to run across a minefield whilst guns are being fired at them. Youtube Banned the video because people took it too seriously and accused M.I.A of discrimination against Gingers. This is why I have included a link to the video, on the left, instead of the youtube video. The song was actually M.I.A's recollection of hiding with her family during the Sri Lankan Civil War. The song focuses on her feelings when the Tamil Tiger Rebels were slaughtered. Tamils were an ethnic group living in eastern parts of Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tiger Rebels were an organisation fighting for Tamil Rights. Over100 years after the slave trade we are still protesting with the help of music. It is harder to gain the attention of the public through political songs, as there are so many genres and so many target audiences who listen to a variety of music, but music continues to be informative and portray the opinions of musicians. |
Conclusion
To Conclude, legislation has been put in place for our protection. We are shielded from profanity, sexual implications and violence. Despite this, we are bombarded with news stories about malicious attacks every single day. Why are we protected from these things in the music industry but not within politics? because the government wants to filter everything the public views whilst using scare tactics to keep us in place. Copyright is the legal protection given to songs, lyrics, films, books and generally anything artistic. getting copyright isn't very difficult. All you need is an original piece of work and to fix the song. Fixing the song would be recording it, recording it live or writing it down. Without this, anyone can legally steal your song without paying you. As much as you may love music, everyone wants to be paid for their hard work and dedication. Whenever your song is played on the radio, performed by a band or sang on X Factor, you will be paid royalties. Back in the good ol' days when people wrote their own music, lyrics and performed it themselves, musicians would be paid royalties for the sound recording and composition. Recording artists will make a considerable amount of money from tours, record sales and merchandise, although wouldn't it be great to receive more money from the composition itself?
Stakeholders are the main contributors of a business. These people have a interest in the business because they could potentially be at a financial gain. Big companies are taking away our creative freedom by enforcing laws on us that prohibit our creativity. We can't produce a remix of a song without it being taken down. Even if we are at no financial benefit, we are breaking the law. This is more jealousy than law breaking. If we produce a better version of the song why can't we share it with the world? Is music not about peace and love anymore? does 'sharing means caring' not come into this scenario? If so, the industry has become so dry and hell bent on profit margins and copyright protection, I don't want to be apart of it.
Censorship is the suppression of harmful and politically incorrect content. Censorship has been used to stop the public from listening to profanity. It has become a massive part of day to day life when it comes to social media. It helps to keep underage children from seeing harmful content. I don't understand why your age should determine the legality of watching a video or listening to a song. Is a 17 year old going to be more vulnerable to a song that an 18 year old? I don't agree that the government should determine what we listen to. I think that self censorship is a step forward in music and media. We should be allowed to determine, for ourselves, if we can watch a video.
Protesting with the use of music has been around for many years. It can help put a point across without arguing and it can help gain the attention of the public. I think that protest music has changed dramatically in the past 200 years. It started out with music and lyrics that had a strong political message. It has developed so much further into the digital age with media. A lot of protest music is still about the message put across by the lyrics but it's also about the visuals. Video's can play with peoples heartstrings and change their mood. I strongly believe that through music, people can make a tremendous difference in the world.
Stakeholders are the main contributors of a business. These people have a interest in the business because they could potentially be at a financial gain. Big companies are taking away our creative freedom by enforcing laws on us that prohibit our creativity. We can't produce a remix of a song without it being taken down. Even if we are at no financial benefit, we are breaking the law. This is more jealousy than law breaking. If we produce a better version of the song why can't we share it with the world? Is music not about peace and love anymore? does 'sharing means caring' not come into this scenario? If so, the industry has become so dry and hell bent on profit margins and copyright protection, I don't want to be apart of it.
Censorship is the suppression of harmful and politically incorrect content. Censorship has been used to stop the public from listening to profanity. It has become a massive part of day to day life when it comes to social media. It helps to keep underage children from seeing harmful content. I don't understand why your age should determine the legality of watching a video or listening to a song. Is a 17 year old going to be more vulnerable to a song that an 18 year old? I don't agree that the government should determine what we listen to. I think that self censorship is a step forward in music and media. We should be allowed to determine, for ourselves, if we can watch a video.
Protesting with the use of music has been around for many years. It can help put a point across without arguing and it can help gain the attention of the public. I think that protest music has changed dramatically in the past 200 years. It started out with music and lyrics that had a strong political message. It has developed so much further into the digital age with media. A lot of protest music is still about the message put across by the lyrics but it's also about the visuals. Video's can play with peoples heartstrings and change their mood. I strongly believe that through music, people can make a tremendous difference in the world.