Wedding music

[Magnificat]

You seem insistent on this idea of donating the musicians money to charity. I assume you are unaware that £1 of every CD sale of the recording is going to the charity that Princes William and Harry have set up. Religion and musicians fees have nothing to do with each other and should not be mixed up. Your point is irrelevant.

I am glad to hear it.

The point is relevant. It is that the musicians providing services to the Abbey for which they are paid should not receive payment for the broadcast services they sing as though they were a commercial concert.

My answer to David Underdown may be a possible way around this. A fair and reasonable payment which is what should be made to the men could well turn out to be £7,500 each based upon the way royalties are calculated. As long as the Abbey pay it and not PRS all would be well as far as I am concerned.

In fact, I would like to see WA, as our premier choral foundation, pay its lay clerks a proper fee based on living in London, say, £80,000 pa in return for having first call on them for daily services, festivals, special and royal occassions. They can do this ( perhaps the only church/cathedral that can ) as they are a very very wealthy establishment. It would also be a better all round situation for James O'Donnell ( with a corresponding increases for him and his assistants ) who would not have to rely so much deputies and similarly the lay clerks on other fees and royalties. This would cost about a £ 1 million pa, peanuts for WA.

VCC

[Magnificat]

If copyright music is broadcast the copyright holder is entitled to a royalty. The church (or anyone else) is not able to change that. The payment is made by the broadcaster, not the church.

And how do you think that money the Performing Rights Society collects (from broadcasters) on behalf of its members can be given by Westminster Abbey to the charity of your choice?!

Gabriel,

I am saying that if the copyright holder declines to forgo the royalty due to him his music would not be broadcast. If it is PRS could instruct instruct the broadcaster to pay it direct to whoever is nominated. In these days of real time electronic communication there are ways round seemingly unusual and difficult situations like this.

VCC.

[Gabriel Jackson]

Gabriel,

I am saying that if the copyright holder declines to forgo the royalty due to him his music would not be broadcast. If it is PRS could instruct instruct the broadcaster to pay it direct to whoever is nominated. In these days of real time electronic communication there are ways round seemingly unusual and difficult situations like this.

VCC.

Your insistence that no-one should benefit financially in any way from the broadcast of their work that happens to have been undertaken in a service of worship becomes ever more baroque and bizarre! So every time any service is to be broadcast, you would have the church/cathedral/college chapel concerned contact the composer and/or the author of the words and/or the publisher of the work and/or the composer's estate and/or the author's estate to ascertain whether they are willing to donate their small royalty to a charity of (your?) choice and if any one of those parties is not in agreement a non-copyright work must be substituted? Bonkers!!

[Don Basilio]

Bach didn't just write all those cantatas and passions for free.

[Magnificat]

Your insistence that no-one should benefit financially in any way from the broadcast of their work that happens to have been undertaken in a service of worship becomes ever more baroque and bizarre! So every time any service is to be broadcast, you would have the church/cathedral/college chapel concerned contact the composer and/or the author of the words and/or the publisher of the work and/or the composer's estate and/or the author's estate to ascertain whether they are willing to donate their small royalty to a charity of (your?) choice and if any one of those parties is not in agreement a non-copyright work must be substituted? Bonkers!!

Gabriel,

Yes and why not?

The church must not be involved in the payment of commercial royalties in respect of broadcasts of Divine Service. It is unethical.

You said up thread that composers do not receive a royalty if their music is used in services that are not broadcast but what difference does the broadcast make? It is still a service.

If you were to forgo a royalty you would still benefit from having your piece heard in public and in the knowledge that a charity is being helped in a small way at least. What's wrong with that ?

VCC

[Gabriel Jackson]

Yes and why not?

Why not? Think about it!

The church must not be involved in the payment of commercial royalties in respect of broadcasts of Divine Service. It is unethical.

Why is it unethical? In any case, as has been pointed out umpteen times,the broadcaster pays the royalty, not the church.

You said up thread that composers do not receive a royalty if their music is used in services that are not broadcast but what difference does the broadcast make? It is still a service.

No it is not, it is a broadcast of a service!

If you were to forgo a royalty you would still benefit from having your piece heard in public and in the knowledge that a charity is being helped in a small way at least. What's wrong with that ?

VCC

So musicians should be so grateful that their work is heard that it is unreasonable for them to receive any remuneration for it? Are you so grateful for the opportunity to do your job that you eschew payment for it?

[Don Basilio]

The church must not be involved in the payment of commercial royalties in respect of broadcasts of Divine Service. It is unethical.

But Gabriel, (who will know more of this than I) just said the royalties are arranged between the composer and the broadcaster. I don't see why the church should not be happy to ensure that someone providing a service for them is remunerated.

what difference does the broadcast make? It is still a service. VCC

A wedding is not the liturgy of the whole people of God, but a pastoral office or sacrament (and why didn't they receive communion, now the Duchess has been confirmed?) for the individuals concerned. Once it is a broadcast, it is no longer a live liturgy involving those present, but a spectacle, however pious some of those watching it may be in intention.

[yorks_bass]

Why is it unethical? In any case, as has been pointed out umpteen times,the broadcaster pays the royalty, not the church.

I'm afraid poor old VCC has got himself so het up he can't see the basic difference being presented here. Of course the broadcast is separate from the service, and a fee is due from the broadcasters worldwide who make money from other people's work through relay and advertising. It is only reasonable, and I believe a basic part of copyright. And then there are buyouts for royalties for what I assume is the inevitable DVD, and we see how the fee adds up. Not that I'd necessarily believe the figure quoted. But even if it is close, it will have been calculated properly according to long-standing broadcast agreements.

Perhaps we should leave him to stew in the juices of his inwardly-spiralling argument. He obviously refuses to understand that the Abbey won't be paying such a fee, and that it isn't in any way a fee for the service. I believe the BBC TV special service fee for WA, WC and StP is around £200 (although correct me if I'm wrong - the arrangements are beyond my limited sphere of knowledge). This is the figure VCC should be considering regarding their payment for singing at a church service - does it seem unreasonable? The arrangements for commercial distribution and selling of rights to artistic output must remain separate. If we were all asked to give up what is ours by right, as sometimes, unfortunately, happens, it would quickly become impossible to work in this industry full-time. We don't all do this as a paid hobby.

[MrGongGong]

Why not? Think about it!



Why is it unethical? In any case, as has been pointed out umpteen times,the broadcaster pays the royalty, not the church.



No it is not, it is a broadcast of a service!



So musicians should be so grateful that their work is heard that it is unreasonable for them to receive any remuneration for it? Are you so grateful for the opportunity to do your job that you eschew payment for it?

Quite

I'm not (as I said before) a Church Musician but do earn ALL my families income from music, the last thing these wonderful and massively skilled musicians need is some pompous twit deciding that somehow its unethical for them to earn money from their work. Does this extend to roofers, organ builders , piano tuners , stonemasons etc etc ??? what utter nonsense

but maybe mr Cat is going to single handedly support the entire infrastructure of English Church music out of his (evidently ) deep pockets ?

[decantor]

Looking at this coin from the other side........ I am always happy to attend a concert by a liturgical choir because I can put one hand in my pocket to defray their costs at the least, and my two hands together to show my appreciation.

Similarly, if the Abbey singers make a fortune from the commercial aspects of the royal wedding, I am delighted for them. I hope against hope that even the youngsters - who sang for Maundy a week earlier, and so cannot have got much holiday - will have received something that might eventually make a dent in their university fees. The choir's expertise greatly enhanced a notable national occasion that aroused global interest, and they surely deserve any reward that comes their way. My only regret would be that such occasions are rare, and so many worthy choirs never benefit from such a windfall.

[David Underdown]

As regards the PRS side of things, I understood that performances as part of divine service were exempt (happy to be corrected on this). So again it's presumably the purely commercial aspects that attract that side of things. The official album does not appear to include the whole liturgical aspects of the service, but basically just the music (I think the vows may be included). For most intents and purposes then, it's indistinguishable from the sort of thing put out by LSO Live and the like.

[Magnificat]

Why not? Think about it!



Why is it unethical? In any case, as has been pointed out umpteen times,the broadcaster pays the royalty, not the church.



No it is not, it is a broadcast of a service!



So musicians should be so grateful that their work is heard that it is unreasonable for them to receive any remuneration for it? Are you so grateful for the opportunity to do your job that you eschew payment for it?

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

[Don Basilio]

I say Evening Prayer in my house. I do not expect to be paid for it. However the icons I have, the candles and the incense I use were all paid for. Why was it unethical for Habitat to charge me for the nightlights? I really don't understand.

And I doubt many people buying the DVD or CD of the Cambridge nuptials are going to listen or watch them in a spirit of concentrated devotion to the Holy Trinity, rather in sentimental admiration for the young couple and the glamorous contingencies of the solemnization of their marriage. In which case there is no question of any simony.

[Magnificat]

But Gabriel, (who will know more of this than I) just said the royalties are arranged between the composer and the broadcaster. I don't see why the church should not be happy to ensure that someone providing a service for them is remunerated.




A wedding is not the liturgy of the whole people of God, but a pastoral office or sacrament (and why didn't they receive communion, now the Duchess has been confirmed?) for the individuals concerned. Once it is a broadcast, it is no longer a live liturgy involving those present, but a spectacle, however pious some of those watching it may be in intention.

DB

1) He would have been rewarded by payment of a fee when is composition was first used. If it is used again other than in an act of worship, as I have said above no one could possibly argue with that.

2)Yes, but this would be recognised by a payment to the lay clerks by the Abbey as I have said.

Communion isn't necessary to make the wedding service Divine service. Matrimony is a Holy estate ordained by God , prayers are addressed to God. God is addressed as Creator and Preserver of all mankind, giver of all spiritual grace and the author of everlasting life.

VCC

[Magnificat]

DB

Habitat sold you some goods thats all.