Wedding music

[MrGongGong]

Gabriel et al

You do not seem to understand or want to understand that you should not benefit financially from an act of worship of Almighty God in which you are not directly involved on the day.

The church also should not have any part whatsoever in the receipt or payment of royalties from commercial agencies of any sort when they relate to an act of worship.

I know the broadcaster pays the royalty to you but the church should not sanction such a payment and that is why I say that the cathedral should ask you not to accept and only use your music if you agree. If you agree and the mechanics of the operation mean that it will be paid anyway and nothing can be done about this at least the church has fulfilled its, in my view, ethical obligation and would at least be trusting you to give it to charity.

I am quite happy for you to be paid a fee for composing a piece of music by the church for the church to use in a service as I am for WA to pay its lay clerks for their skills as it is all part of the latter's wish to do the very best it can provide a service worthy of God as long as you and they are involved in it directly on the day.

As far as the Royal Wedding is concerned the broadcaster is paying royalties and it is wrong for the lay clerks to accept such a payment from people not directly involved in the service. What should happen, even if it doesn't and as I suggested above to David Underdown and Jamiepompey, is that WA, as they sanctioned the commercial use of the service, should pay the men a fair and reasonable extra payment which could even be based on the way royalties are calculated. But the Abbey must pay it and instruct the broadcaster or request the lay clerks to pay the royalties to the Royal Wedding charity.

A broadcast of a service is still a service. Surely you can see this.

Use of your music in any way other than a divine service by the church will provide you with your normal expectation of a royalty and rightly so.

I am sorry that you and others cannot see that there is a very important ethical point here even if the amounts involved are small.

VCC

since when did the church do the Christian thing and give all of its money to the poor anyway ?
or is it just musicians you want to impoverish ?

[Magnificat]

Mr GG

How many musicians compose for the church these days? Very few I should think

Impoverish - come off it how many rely on broadcast services for the greater part of their income.

The majority of lay clerks have other employment. The professionals should be paid more than they are but very few churches/cathedrals are in the position of WA and I have always acknowledged this but they should be paid ethically when it comes to cashing in off the back of the Almighty. Some of them, however, have done very well out of the Church vide The Tallis Scholars and The Sixteen and other groups and could probably consider lowering their extortionate prices for concerts. There is a recession on after all and some of are really quite impoverished indeed.

You could also say that the WA Lay Clerks should remember that very many people have to survive each week on less than they get paid for a service

If,say, the Vatican sold off all of its possessions and gave up all its wealth, how much would the poor get anyway- a couple of quid each I should think.

VCC

[MrGongGong]

"If,say, the Vatican sold off all of its possessions and gave up all its wealth, how much would the poor get anyway- a couple of quid each I should think. "

oh I get it
Jesus was only "suggesting" that you do good works if its financially expedient and not too much trouble !

how much do you really know about how freelance musicians live ?
you make the big (and tediously repetitive ) mistake of extrapolating earnings from a fee

I've had this done to me so many times
it usually goes like this
Maybe I earn £400 for a day that includes a couple of rehearsals and a big performance
therefore my daily earnings are £400 X 5 x 52 = what I earn


weekends, holidays, sickness etc etc TAX etc etc etc

[Magnificat]

On a rather lighter note and an aspect of the Royal Wedding that intrigued me.

David Beckham was criticised for wearing his OBE when the invitations requested that civilian decorations should not be worn.

I noticed there was no Head Chorister's medal on show or at least I couldn't see one even after looking at iPlayer catch up on demand a few times and most of the newspaper colour supplements. Did the Royal injunction apply to the choir as well as the guests or are the choristers in some sort of interregnum?

VCC.

[Magnificat]

"If,say, the Vatican sold off all of its possessions and gave up all its wealth, how much would the poor get anyway- a couple of quid each I should think. "

oh I get it
Jesus was only "suggesting" that you do good works if its financially expedient and not too much trouble !

how much do you really know about how freelance musicians live ?
you make the big (and tediously repetitive ) mistake of extrapolating earnings from a fee

I've had this done to me so many times
it usually goes like this
Maybe I earn £400 for a day that includes a couple of rehearsals and a big performance
therefore my daily earnings are £400 X 5 x 52 = what I earn


weekends, holidays, sickness etc etc TAX etc etc etc

Mr GG

Oh dear, you musicians are such a touchy lot!

Of course, Christians should give all their money to the poor but its not going to happen is it. The Church and individual Christians recognised this centuries ago and got on with doing what good works they could realistically do. How many charities have you atheists founded?

VCC

[Miles Coverdale]

I know the broadcaster pays the royalty to you but the church should not sanction such a payment and that is why I say that the cathedral should ask you not to accept and only use your music if you agree.

Good luck with that. That sounds like a recipe for ensuring that only music by long-dead composers is ever broadcast, or by those untroubled by the necessity of making a living.

A broadcast of a service is still a service. Surely you can see this.

No, it is not. The broadcast is the means of transmission, a service is what is being transmitted. The service itself is only 'available' to those present in the building on the day. The broadcast is a means of making that available to a wider audience through the medium of radio and/or television. When a company is making a audio or video recording of the proceedings and selling it, making (one imagines) money in the process, it is right that they pay for what they are using to do so. Sitting at home watching a service on television is not being at a service, it's sitting at home watching television.

Render unto the lay clerks the things which are the lay clerks'.
(The Gospel according to musicians, chapter 1, verse 1).

[Don Basilio]

DB

Habitat sold you some goods thats all.

And the musicans provided a service, that's all. I'm bored with this thread.

[ardcarp]

Yes, can we have a 'yawn' icon please, ff ?

[jamiepompey]

Well, we all seem to agree that unfair exploitation of musicians and their intellectual property is ok so I guess we can close this thread once and for all

[Magnificat]

[QUOTE

No, it is not. The broadcast is the means of transmission, a service is what is being transmitted. The service itself is only 'available' to those present in the building on the day. The broadcast is a means of making that available to a wider audience through the medium of radio and/or television. When a company is making a audio or video recording of the proceedings and selling it, making (one imagines) money in the process, it is right that they pay for what they are using to do so. Sitting at home watching a service on television is not being at a service, it's sitting at home watching television.

Render unto the lay clerks the things which are the lay clerks'.
(The Gospel according to musicians, chapter 1, verse 1).[/QUOTE]

MC

Then why on broadcasts of CE do the Precentors often say 'Welcome to those who are taking part in this service at home'?

What about all those watching the Royal Wedding outside WA on those large screens in Hyde Park etc. They were certainly taking part in the service, singing the hymns saying the Lord's Prayer etc.

Nice try MC but your argument is, well, eccentric to put it politely.

I have never said that the broadcaster shouldn't pay only that the payment should not go to the lay clerks. It should go to a charity nominated by the church. The church should pay the lay clerks the extra money. I wish people would read what is written in these posts.

VCC

[Magnificat]

You're only bored with the thread because you are losing the argument.

[Magnificat]

Well, we all seem to agree that unfair exploitation of musicians and their intellectual property is ok so I guess we can close this thread once and for all

Jamie, old son, the musicians are not being exploited. If anyone is being exploited it is Almighty God and that is shameful.

I gave you all a chance to end this by asking a question above about the Head Chorister's missing medal. Judging by some of the replies to my posts I wouldn't be surprised if some impoverished lay clerk hasn't flogged it!!

VCC

[LPCharles]

What if those doing the exploiting don't believe in God? ie, the uncharitable atheist community?

[Miles Coverdale]

Then why on broadcasts of CE do the Precentors often say 'Welcome to those who are taking part in this service at home'?

What about all those watching the Royal Wedding outside WA on those large screens in Hyde Park etc. They were certainly taking part in the service, singing the hymns saying the Lord's Prayer etc.

Nice try MC but your argument is, well, eccentric to put it politely.

They say that, I imagine, to be more 'inclusive', to make those listening feel involved and to discourage the notion that the experience is a purely passive one. However, they are not taking an active part in the service any more than I am performing at the Proms if I sing along to my radio.

As regards my argument being eccentric, I can't help feeling that it is you who may be in the minority. Can you seriously imagine what would happen if the BBC, for example, went to the Dean of Westminster and said, 'We'd love to broadcast a service from the Abbey, please, and that's going to cost you more money'?

[Wolsey]

David Beckham was criticised for wearing his OBE when the invitations requested that civilian decorations should not be worn.VCC.

Who criticised David Beckham for wearing his OBE, and where was this reported? How do you know about the proscription concerning the wearing of civilian decorations last Friday?