Stupid arrogant orchestra - Need to vent...

[Roland]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

Going back to the original post as I have understood it:

- d_fu is hired by choirmaster to record concert
- orchestra is hired by choirmaster to play concert and would possibly be paid more if they allow a recording
- orchestra doesn't know d_fu or how his recordings sound
- orchestra refuses to be recorded or discuss about being paid for being recorded because, as they say, d_fu's recording will not sound good

--> d_fu is angry about the fact that they say his recording will not sound good.

This whole thread in the beginning wasn't about losing a gig, but about being told you're a bad engineer by someone who hasn't heard anything you've recorded. I think all of us would be pissed.

This is pure speculation on your part, no where in this thread have I read that Daniel was told it was because he was a bad engineer.

This whole post of yours is a flame post based on speculation, certainly not on the facts presented in this thread.

I've heard a couple of bit's of recording that Daniel has posted on threads and they sound fine to me, the point that is being missed here is nothing to do with recording competence, but everything to do with professionalism. Based on his samples that he has posted I have no doubt that he could do a reasonable job, possibly even a excellent one, but I couldn't recommend him or you to one of my clients because there is a high probability that your attitude would piss them off, thus reflecting badly on me and I for one wouldn't take that risk. You and he both need to get off your pulpit's and learn how this profession works or you are in for a rough ride.

Regards to all


Roland

[rufus13]

Originally Posted by RedEar

Next time get a contract. It is just good business. Always get a contract.

If you have a contract to record, and they won't let you for whatever (or no) reason, you get paid, and "someone" has to answer as to why there is no recording after a recordist was paid, or why the available recording is poor (nephew of the Director did it for free). This is a big problem when dealing with musical committees of religious organizations because they deny hiring you or all agree that you were working for free or as an intern, ESPECIALLY if the recording was A+ and the performance was C-. Get an enforceable contract signed by the music director and the Chairperson of the committee that is authorized to approve/write checks, beforehand.

A prenuptual agreement is uncomfortable, but nothing like the lingering pain of a divorce judgement.

Plan for the worst.

Karl

[Tone Laborer]

You have to get the permissions well in advance or your inviting trouble. Somebody didn't and you paid for it. You'll know next time. I might have missed it, but did you mention the copyrights?

I don't know the copyright laws in Germany, but in the US, to record someone elses song without copyright permission (ie you pay for the right to record the song), is illegal. So , unless you paid for the license, you would have been ripping off the copyright holder as well as not paying the Orchestra for their part in the recording. In other words you would have been making a BOOTLEG recording.

It does not matter, by the letter of the law, that it was not a "For Sale" recording. Or it was just for the choir, none of that matters at all. Though everybody seems to think it does. Maybe German laws are different.

I agree these laws were written in a different era, and are commonly ignored by every mother, son and daughter with a digital recorder, but they still on the books in the US.

[larsfarm]

Originally Posted by Tone Laborer

I don't know the copyright laws in Germany, but in the US, to record someone else's song without copyright permission (ie you pay for the right to record the song), is illegal. So , unless you paid for the license, you would have been ripping off the copyright holder as well as not paying the Orchestra for their part in the recording. In other words you would have been making a BOOTLEG recording.

You do need the performers permission. The performer can veto the recording, that's all. The performer might choose to use this veto in a negotiation. If a professional that you hire is trouble, you hire another next time. That goes for recording engineers, plumbers, carpenters, musicians, dentists, it-consultants etc, etc...

Originally Posted by Tone Laborer

I agree these laws were written in a different era, and are commonly ignored by every mother, son and daughter with a digital recorder, but they still on the books in the US.

Copyright is first and foremost for the composer, the creator of the work. Then there is the recording company and the performers. This part of copyright law was created to protect the performer and allow the negotiation of a fair share of the revenue from the recording. In a situation like this with tens to perhaps a hundred CD, there is nothing to share. A fair share of nothing is ... ? As for protecting the integrity of the performer ... They are professionals that play for hire. Shouldn't they play just as well without microphones as with. That is surely what the choir/their employer for the night will expect.

L

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by larsfarm

Copyright is first and foremost for the composer, the creator of the work.
L

The classical performer is as much a creator in the performance of a classical piece as Sinatra was when singing songs by Mancini.

The way it works is if you disregard the rules the good players will no longer play the gig. Threatening to not hire again will invariably end up hurting the contractor not the good players.

We just cancelled a radio broadcast of Schumann piano concerto today as the pianist was uncomfortable with certain dress rehersal conditions.
We do not hold a grudge, the guy is a true professional and simply wishes to sound good.

[larsfarm]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

The classical performer is as much a creator...

Copyright law is similar throughout large portions of the world through international treaties. A decade ago I read the law about intelectual property several times over from the view of patent right, but when it comes to music I've been satisfied with the "readers digest" versions found in composer organizations (www.stim.se) or musicians (www.sami.se) with great opportunity for misinterpretation, still...

In a quick and rough translation from the Swedish Artist and Musicians Interest-organisation (SAMI www.sami.se). This isn't quoting the law, but it is quoting the swedish musician unions interpretation of the law:

"The law about intellectual property concerning literature and artistic work gives the holder exclusive right to use its work and make it public (*)
- In the area of music, holders of intellectual property is primarily composers and text writers.
- The law also talks about "related rights" for performing artists and musicians and record producers.
- The veto right is a right to prevent making a recording public(**)"

L

(*) i.e. copy -> right to copy, copyright
(**) rather than a right to prevent a recording

[Roland]

Originally Posted by larsfarm

Copyright law is similar throughout large portions of the world through international treaties. A decade ago I read the law about intelectual property several times over from the view of patent right, but when it comes to music I've been satisfied with the "readers digest" versions found in composer organizations (www.stim.se) or musicians (www.sami.se) with great opportunity for misinterpretation, still...

In a quick and rough translation from the Swedish Artist and Musicians Interest-organisation (SAMI www.sami.se). This isn't quoting the law, but it is quoting the swedish musician unions interpretation of the law:

"The law about intellectual property concerning literature and artistic work gives the holder exclusive right to use its work and make it public (*)
- In the area of music, holders of intellectual property is primarily composers and text writers.
- The law also talks about "related rights" for performing artists and musicians and record producers.
- The veto right is a right to prevent making a recording public(**)"

L

(*) i.e. copy -> right to copy, copyright
(**) rather than a right to prevent a recording

This does miss the point slightly. The musicians are being hired for a live performance, not a recording. Recordings attract different rates, however a recording can be made of a live event subject to agreement in advance with the players, or a players contract stating that it is a condition of their hire that they agree to a limited use recording being made of their performance (usually this is as either a demo or for reference by the artist/conductor/management). If the recording is to be exploited commercially should they not receive a fee they could reasonably retrospectively request the appropriate recording fee (according to what is deemed "the going rate") and I would take a guess that legally they would have a good case. If someone "benefits" financially from a performers performance they can reasonably expect to be renumerated for it. If anyone is in any doubt about this just look at the amount of pamra payments that were made to players in the UK a few years ago. A client of mine for whom I made several orchestral recordings had to take note of all the players that performed during live recordings for just this purpose.

Regards to all


Roland

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by Roland

This is pure speculation on your part, no where in this thread have I read that Daniel was told it was because he was a bad engineer.

This whole post of yours is a flame post based on speculation, certainly not on the facts presented in this thread.

I've heard a couple of bit's of recording that Daniel has posted on threads and they sound fine to me, the point that is being missed here is nothing to do with recording competence, but everything to do with professionalism. Based on his samples that he has posted I have no doubt that he could do a reasonable job, possibly even a excellent one, but I couldn't recommend him or you to one of my clients because there is a high probability that your attitude would piss them off, thus reflecting badly on me and I for one wouldn't take that risk. You and he both need to get off your pulpit's and learn how this profession works or you are in for a rough ride.

Regards to all


Roland

Roland,

trying to clear up some things I think have been misunderstood and thus have led to over-reaction:
I don't think my last post is speculation on my part, as you are stating. See quote below.
I am in no way "flaming" anyone, neither intentionally nor accidentally. I have posted my understanding of the issue in question, and I have clearly marked it as my subjective impression. No need to accuse me of flame posts.

You're right in stating that in the orchestra's view it seems to be not an issue of recording competence (although Daniel wrote that was one of the reasons they gave) but of professionalism when professionalism means things like talking to the orchestra soon enough and having written contracts with all parties involved, thus avoiding conflicts.
As to the last part of your post: I would like you to be a little more precise about what you suppose our "attitudes" are, how you come to the conclusion that Daniel's and mine are similar to each other, and what you base your judgment on. However, I think this doesn't belong into this thread, so if you like feel free to PM me.

Here's the quote I am referring to in the beginning of this post:

Originally Posted by d_fu

Perfectly ok. But the same orchestra had not refused to be recorded in the same place two years ago or so. It's just not fair towards the choir. And for me, the worst part is that I was not given a chance to reply to the points they raised, e.g. fears about my not being able to balance things after the recording (nonsense) or even the danger of an illegal sale (more nonsense). The conductor did suggest to the orchestra's manager to talk to me directly, but she wouldn't. I feel like a criminal for wanting to make some money with the best possible recording I can make. (...)

[pkautzsch]

Tone Labourer,

German copyright laws are similar to copyright laws elsewhere in the world. But there is a difference between the writer and the performer of a piece. If the writer or arranger has been dead for more than 70 years, the work is considered "public domain", so you don't have to pay for the right to perform and record Bach's Mass in B minor.
The performers, however, have to be paid via an organization called GVL if the recording is being sold commercially. In addition, they might have contracts stating they get paid more for a performance with recording than for one without recording.

[tzanc]

Yeah, orchestras are a real bummer. But the thing is, it got that way because they would be taken advantage of. I feel your pain, though. As to the comment that the choirmaster is not a conductor, that's pretty much a load of crap, and I take umbrage at the suggestion. For whatever historical reason, orchestral conductors gained primacy, but that is basically just an arbitrary thing. IN FACT, Bach himself was primarily a choirmaster - how fitting for this production.

[klaukholm]

As some of you know I am a full time player in a 100 piece orchestra and I own a recording company .

We are professionals who have different rates for different services.
We do not work for free.

In all european orchestras there is a standard fee for a single radio broadcast, one for recording, one for televised performance and so forth.

these fees come on top of what you get paid for the concert. for many of us this is a very large part of our salaries and to forgo this would be like asking an american waitress to work without tips.

As a recording company we have different rates for different work.
The same goes for orchestral work.
Most of the time one will find orchestral musicians to be exceedingly flexible, but never make assumptions. Ask in advance. When these things become apparent in a dress rehersal while getting the tuning A, categorical decisions have to be made without much room for debate.

There are days when I long back to american union rules and heavy handed encforcement.
Until you have worked the american union scene, you have no idea how flexible the european orchestra scene is.

[larsfarm]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

We are professionals who have different rates for different services.

That is the starting point in negotiations and this of course is something completely different from different rates stipulated by law as some have claimed. A large, well known orchestra with fulltime union organized employees has a very different platform to negotiate from than a smaller orchestra that is put together for the occasion on freelance basis. Even if every member happens to be employed elsewhere in a large professional orchestra.

L

[d_fu]

Hi everyone,

I did not see how this thread progressed because I was in Frankfurt for the Musikmesse, with little or no internet access (which either kept failing or was terribly expensive). I'm busy all day tomorrow (Bigband) and will post some comments tomorrow evening. Need sleep now.

Only the presence of so much gear in Frankfurt could keep me from getting serious GS withdrawal symptoms.

Daniel

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by HEADROOM

The "private document, not for release" argument has been heard often, and still every now and again a copy lands on the wrong desk and goes its own way.
So the only way to prevent things like that happening is to simply NOT ALLOW recording . Period. No discussion.It s just not on.

Too simplistic... The orchestra was a hired guest/accompanist. A recording would have had no (commercial or whatever) recording because of their name on it. Maybe they were afraid of having potential inaccuracies in their playing documented...

Originally Posted by Roland

This is pure speculation on your part, no where in this thread have I read that Daniel was told it was because he was a bad engineer.

Then you did not read my posting well enough...

This whole post of yours is a flame post based on speculation, certainly not on the facts presented in this thread.

That's exactly what one could say about your posting, and rightly so...

Originally Posted by Tone Laborer

I don't know the copyright laws in Germany, but in the US, to record someone elses song without copyright permission (ie you pay for the right to record the song), is illegal. So , unless you paid for the license, you would have been ripping off the copyright holder as well as not paying the Orchestra for their part in the recording. In other words you would have been making a BOOTLEG recording.

As has been pointed out before, (composer's) copyright is not an issue here. Bach's been dead for quite some time now...

[Plush]

Get on to your next recording and forget this episode.

What a joke! Who needs to worry about some jerky people who goofed you over?

Un-burden yourself of any more thoughts and concentrate on getting the next good quality recording work.

I can't believe this thread has progressed to be 4 pages.

[Remoteness]

This thread is only two pages long because I have my threads set at 100 posts per page.

Listen to Plushness -- He is totally on point with this matter. Move on; move forward in a positive direction.

Enjoy!

[HEADROOM]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Too simplistic... The orchestra was a hired guest/accompanist. A recording would have had no (commercial or whatever) recording because of their name on it. Maybe they were afraid of having potential inaccuracies in their playing documented...

...

Which is absolutely legitimate by the way.....

AND :

Ive noticed that many posters mix up two different forms of copyright.

For example: I sing "Yesterday" on a concert. If a recording is made, I am one of the copyright holders of that RECORDING.
Unless I agree to let go of my copyright for a fee. (I sign a declaration saying so).

If I dont want to be recorded because I sing lousy that is my right.

The fact that the song was written by lennon/mccartney has nothing to do with this matter because a different copyright is involved.

This should be clear in this example, things get easier mixed up when the singer/performer is also the composer of the work.

In those cases many people start to mix up these copyrights (even record company executives do this).

As a recording artist and as a composer you are two persons legally speaking. (Andere Rechtsperson ...in German)

I hope this helps to keep the composer copyrights out of this discussion as they have nothing to do with it.


nickoosterhuis.com

[HEADROOM]

And to D-fu:

Bottom line is:You were hired for a job and the job got cancelled.Happens all the time....


Trying to discuss things with the orchestra (trying and help to sort things out, well meant) was not part of your job. The orchestra was nt hired by you, so they wouldnt discuss the matter with you.
You were a hired third party as the orchestra was.

Your business partner was the choir so they have to solve the matter with you.(pay part or offer a later recording date or whatever you agree on)

To blame the orchestra for mistakes other people made is a bit thin.

www.nickoosterhuis.com

[d_fu]

The thing seems to really boil down to one person's decision, without even having asked the eintire orchestra... And this person has a definite reputation of being a bit, well, "difficult".
Most musicians in this kind of scene here will not mind internal archival recordings at all, and even tolerate semi-public/commercial sales if they are for a good cause (e.g. church/organ renovation).