Wedding music

[Magnificat]

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'?

MC

Getting away from the Royal Wedding specifically, I would like to come back to you on your last point

This interesting because if you apply it to CE generally the answer depends very much on the cathedral /college's view of what the broadcast is for. If, for example, they see it as a form of evangelism they might well be prepared to pay for the exposure.

I would like to think that Deans and Chapters wouldn't necessarily be looking to make money out of the broadcast of an act of worship even if the payments are due as a result of the BBC's liability to pay for broadcasting rights

What payments are made by the BBC for a broadcast of CE and to whom and for what exactly ?

I wouldn't want to deny anyone, especially the musicians, what is due to them under the relevant law etc but as I have stated above so often ethically it is a question of who should pay them. I still feel that payments involving commercial agencies for rights, royalties and media buy - outs etc have no place as far as an act of worship is concerned. Concerts, recordings by the choir and non - religious ceremonies held in cathedrals/churches which use the musicians services are an entirely different matter.

VCC

[amateur51]

I couldn't care less whether Beckham wore his OBE. He is obviously proud enough of it to wear it. Good for him I say sod the protocol. It was the Queen's adherance to protocol after all that got her into so much trouble when Prince William's mother died.

VCC

I can back you up there, Magnificat

I've seen that film too

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Queen-DVD-Helen-Mirren/dp/B00005JPAO/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1305061167&sr=1-1

[Miles Coverdale]

MC

Getting away from the Royal Wedding specifically, I would like to come back to you on your last point

This interesting because if you apply it to CE generally the answer depends very much on the cathedral /college's view of what the broadcast is for. If, for example, they see it as a form of evangelism they might well be prepared to pay for the exposure.

I doubt that very much, I have to say. Most cathedrals have enough to worry about balancing their day to day budgets without paying for broadcasts, evangelical or otherwise.

I would like to think that Deans and Chapters wouldn't necessarily be looking to make money out of the broadcast of an act of worship even if the payments are due as a result of the BBC's liability to pay for broadcasting rights

What payments are made by the BBC for a broadcast of CE and to whom and for what exactly ?

They're *not* looking to make money. I think the bean-counters would be quite happy if broadcasts didn't happen at all, given that they involve extra admin for the payroll department and so on.

As far as I'm aware, the BBC pay fees to the singers, both front and back rows, and the director and the person playing the organ. They also pay a facility fee, which will cover things like vergers' overtime. Because the Wednesday broadcast is repeated on the Sunday, you also get a repeat fee of 50% of the main fee. For the men, this comes to a total of around £100 or so. I've no idea what the other people involved get and I'm not going to speculate.

I wouldn't want to deny anyone, especially the musicians, what is due to them under the relevant law etc but as I have stated above so often ethically it is a question of who should pay them. I still feel that payments involving commercial agencies for rights, royalties and media buy - outs etc have no place as far as an act of worship is concerned. Concerts, recordings by the choir and non - religious ceremonies held in cathedrals/churches which use the musicians services are an entirely different matter.

VCC

As has been pointed out before, PRS fees are not payable on music used in acts of worship. The crucial difference between a broadcast of Choral Evensong and something like the Royal Wedding is that no one is trying to make commercial gain from CE. With the Royal Wedding, and its associated CD and DVD releases, world-wide television broadcasts etc., people *are* looking to make commercial gain. That is why royalties etc. are payable on such an event. The fact that it is (partly) a religious service is irrelevant in that particular regard. The people who should pay the royalties are those who are looking to gain from the commercial enterprise, and that is indeed what happens. If you, for some reason I still don't really understand, think that Westminster Abbey should pay the singers royalties so that Global Megamedia Corporation can make a DVD of it, and commercial broadcasters can have customers pay to watch it, then we have probably arrived at what I believe is called the perpetual re-statement of opposing positions.

As I've said before, one has to separate what is being delivered from the means of delivery. If I can attempt to draw what is probably not a very good analogy, if someone wants to get a book from a publisher, they have to pay for it to be sent in the post. Even if the publisher gives this particular book away for nothing if you go and pick it up in person, you have to pay postage and packing if you want it sent. The Royal Mail won't carry the book for free just because it's the Bible.

As I've probably stretched my powers of analogy beyond breaking-point, I'm going to bed.

[french frank]

If [...], then we have probably arrived at what I believe is called the perpetual re-statement of opposing positions.

I am getting messages from members that that point has now been reached on this subject and that a halt should be called here. Since the subject was reopened and received one reply, may we call this a 1-1 draw at full time?

[DracoM]

I did twice request that this thread should stick to Wedding Music and avoid the highly contentious direction it had taken. Regret that circumstances last night prevented me from seeing the final two postings before FF entered the fray this a.m., but had I been able to do so, i would have closed the thread forthwith.

[Magnificat]

I did twice request that this thread should stick to Wedding Music and avoid the highly contentious direction it had taken. Regret that circumstances last night prevented me from seeing the final two postings before FF entered the fray this a.m., but had I been able to do so, i would have closed the thread forthwith.

Draco

This is a stupid message frankly.

FF said that he was all in favour of reasoned debate on even a provocative subject.

You don't seem to want any debate at all!

MC has come back to me with a completely reasonable answer.

I cannot agree with him that it is possible to separate the act of broadcasting from what is being broadcast and what he has said about the fees paid confirm that the CE broadcasts are meant, certainly in greater part, just to make money for the cathedral and the singers from an act of worship and I still find this unseemly to put it mildly.

You can close the thread now. Grow up.

Edit: Closing this thread does not indicate that discussion on this subject is being vetoed, merely that the exchanges here at the moment don't seem conducive to sensible discussion.