Music Publishing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Music Publishing - Essay Example Musicians are artists that are mostly hard working and unacknowledged. Making money with music is not an easy road. The way for any business to make money is through volume and this is no different in the music industry. Volume comes when one recording is sold repeatedly so that the money accumulates and makes the people who created and own the music money from its sales. What typically happens, however, is that those with the power ‘buy out’ the rights to what a musician plays so that they do not get paid for every use of the recording that is paid for by one entity or another. Musicians with power will continue to own their rights, but those who are hired for short term of only for the period of time to make a recording are bought out so that the re-sale of the music is not limited by a large body of ‘partners’ who all have rights to be paid (Harrison 2011, p. 232). There was a time when even the artists were not included in the group who was paid on the r eturn of selling the music. Paul McCartney can attest to the pain of that as he saw his entire catalogue of music sold to Michael Jackson after sharing with him that it was going up for sale. As a result of that sale, every time that McCartney wants to play â€Å"Hey Jude† he has to pay a royalty, even though he wrote the song. (Marinucci 2009). In order to create ownership to a piece of music the contract must include that ownership will be retained either in part or as a whole. The statement that is being addressed is whether or not â€Å"All musicians featured on a popular music recording are entitled to an appropriate share and interest in the music publishing copyright of the work performed on that recording†. In addressing the definitions of music, composition, and ownership, the answer is that it is not the case that all musicians would be qualified to gain as an author to a piece of music should they participate in its recording. Contribution is very specifical ly defined and if a contributor does nothing to qualify under the parameters that have been set, they are not eligible for an interest in the exploitation of that piece of music (McLeod and DiCola 2011, p. 78). 2. Defining Music The first thing that must be done in order to support a legal definition of ownership and the right to be paid for music is in defining what is meant by music. The written composition is not what is being discussed. Music is what is heard. Arnold (2009, p. 1) uses the example of a piece of music that is played by Louis Armstrong as it is compared to that of Peter Ecklund. The distinction is clear as the sound that Armstrong creates has a quality that is unique to his own personal nuances in the work. In modern collectives, however, it is not as simple as that. Burnard (2012, p. 68) discusses the creative process for musicians. It is a process that sometimes is led by one or done isolated, that can be done by only select members, or is most often a collective experience in which the philosophy and intentionality of the group is expressed through what is produced musically. This not only includes the musicians, but the producer and sometimes the managers as they all work towards the production of a type of audible expression. Burnard (2012), p. 69) states that this is a â€Å"non-linear, multifactorial, and relational†