Where Did The Guitar Tabs Go?

Perhaps someday Paul will be able to expand on what he said about artists not wanting their songs used in this manner. It'd be interesting reading, I bet.

cnev: Yeah, it's crazy.
and I've come to the conclusion it's deliberate
I was thinking the same thing, although I replace typos with lyric changes. I've seen verses of a song in this book that I've not seen elsewhere. I also think that "Fake Books" are really a marketing title. Maybe it didn't start that way, but you just gotta know that one of the two big music rep associations ripped them new ones, or at least threatened to.

Perhaps someday Paul will be able to expand on what he said about artists not wanting their songs used in this manner. It'd be interesting reading, I bet.

There's not much to add, Roy. In the process of contacting publishers and copyright holders we've received some rejections. No explanation is offered and none is needed. It probably has a lot to do with artists protecting the integrity of their work. Recently I learned that some artists are more involved than others in overseeing the use of their music. As an example, The Rolling Stones don't want their songs used in books like "Idiot's Guide to Guitar" and "Guitar for Dummies." They'd rather not be associated with terms like idiots and dummies.

Have you noticed that songs by bands like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd are rarely used in movies? Their songs are prohibitively expensive to use and are off-limits for a reason. The artists are trying to guard their legacy. Nobody likes a sell out. And who wants to see classic songs like "Fortunate Son" being used to sell Levis, especially when it infuriates the songwriter?

We're still trying to work a deal with any publishers that are interested in their artists appearing on Guitar Noise. I may have some news about that in about two weeks.

Thanks for the bit of insight. I always very interesting to read something about the industry's workings and thoughts on many levels. Now I'm trying to think of passable book titles that Mick and Ketih might prefer, for fun of course. Maybe "Guitar For the 'Organizationally challenged, but Gifted Intilects". heehee

Looks like everyone has their price. The way around any Beatles' material is to use some ELO stuff. That Mr Blue Sky song sounds like it was stamped 10 ways to sunday by the Beatles. Still, I guess if I were either Led Zep or the Beatles, I'd assume money wasn't an issue (on many levels) with the rights holders and instead of Led Zep music being plastered all over the 15-30 second media, we get some really awesome partnerships like 'Led Zep's "Rock 'n Roll" and Cadillac's sport car commercials. I thought that the product and it's use of the song in the spots actually added integrity to the song. Win-win, except for the cadillac buyer who just paid an extra 3g for their car.

It's interesting that the Beatles and Led Zep are strict with their work being used, while others have no problems. Some might rememver the Clapton/Young row where Neil expressed opinions about Eric's ventures ino the world of ad-royalty revenue. Remember the next Neil Young tour? It was called "Sponsered by No-one", or something like that. I do wonder, though, if Neil got any dough or other considerations by using the line "She rides a Harley Davidson" in the song "Unknown Legend"?

I love hearing 'Stones songs in movies. especially "Gimme shelter". In a similar way, The Door's, "The End" helped make "Apocolypse Now" IMHO.

Well, to each their own, as the saying goes. Thanks again for the little glimpse into the world behind the scenes. I imagine the fallout will be everlasting. For example, how is David going to know if he can use a song without first dishing out some dough to the suits for some legwork to get pre-approval before he even begins a lesson? :(

how is David going to know if he can use a song without first dishing out some dough to the suits for some legwork to get pre-approval before he even begins a lesson? :(
Believe it or not, we're going to take care of that too. :note1:

Roy I don't see "why" legally you couldn't sing any of the songs as long as you aren't making a profit or distributing it I can't see how there would be anything wrong

I don't seem why either, and it's true that, if Roy is just playing some tunes for some friends, or in an old-folks home, nothing would happen. The law takes a different view in most places though- public performance of copyright works is generally controlled irrespective of whether or not money is made. If it's public performance, it probably IS copyright infringement, if the work in question is under copyright.
if there is then there is something seriously wrong with the laws.

Oh yeah. THere sure is. The current system is built (and constantly being modified and rebuilt) to protect corporate profits and ownership. The fact that this often happens at the expense of innovation and sharing within a creative community is irrelevant. (To them.)

Best,
Ande

Roy I don't see "why" legally you couldn't sing any of the songs as long as you aren't making a profit or distributing it I can't see how there would be anything wrong

I don't seem why either, and it's true that, if Roy is just playing some tunes for some friends, or in an old-folks home, nothing would happen. The law takes a different view in most places though- public performance of copyright works is generally controlled irrespective of whether or not money is made. If it's public performance, it probably IS copyright infringement, if the work in question is under copyright.
if there is then there is something seriously wrong with the laws.

Oh yeah. THere sure is. The current system is built (and constantly being modified and rebuilt) to protect corporate profits and ownership. The fact that this often happens at the expense of innovation and sharing within a creative community is irrelevant. (To them.)

Best,
Ande

Does this mean that legally every tribute / cover band are breaking the law when they perform?

No, Apache. There are several different rights when you create an original piece. The big ones are:

1. The right to control publishing - that is, printed reproductions of your music (which is what's at stake with GN). That's called publishing rights

2. The right to income from public performances of your work. That's called performance rights.

3. The right to income from YOUR recorded version of a piece. That's called mechanical rights.

There are some other rights attached to works too... like synchronization rights (the right to allow or refuse your music to be included with images like movies or commercials), and the right to control the FIRST released recording - famously, Bob Dylan refused himself permission to release his new songs in a negotiation showdown with a label some years back.

Anyway, these rights are usually split up and controlled by various entities. The publishing rights are usually held by a publishing company, the performance rights are usually handled by a performance rights organization, and the mechanical rights are usually controlled by the label.

When a cover band performs, there's no infringement on publishing rights, because it's not being published, and unless the performance is being recorded for release, there's no mechanical rights involved. That leaves performance rights.

The three big performance rights organizations are BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. They each license venues and promoters to publicly perform anything in their catalog. "Perform" is a big tent - if a bar buys a jukebox, they're supposed to license the music that's in it. If a radio station plays music, they need a license. So do websites with music and symphony orchestras - unless they only perform public domain stuff.

When a cover band plays in a bar, the bar owner is supposed to have a current license for the music, and the performing rights organizations send folks out to listen to music in bars and other venues to see if any of their catalog is being played. If it is, and the bar hasn't licensed it, they'll threaten legal action. (About 30 years ago I was playing in a cover band and a BMI rep came into the bar - the show was halted while the owner worked out a licensing deal!)

The license fee depends on the size of the venue, and how often they have music - it runs from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year, typically. Some venue owners skirt this by requiring bands play only original music. If push came to shove, I suppose a band might be held accountable, but in practical terms.... well, if a bar pays $2K per year to license music on weekends, the band's pro-rated slice is pretty small. Plus, bars have better cash flow than your average band - so they're a much better target if it comes to litigation. (It almost always doesn't - the performing rights organizations really bank on persuasion as a strategy, unlike the trade groups for publishing (the MPA) and mechanicals (the RIAA)

Thanks Notes, I thought the world had gone mad(der!) for a minute.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain it for me :D

Yes, thanks for the info NoteBoat....

Some venue owners skirt this by requiring bands play only original music.

What these venue owners don't realize is that if a band is doing original music, and the songwriters in that band are not represented by a Performing Rights Organization (PRO), then they are legally bound to pay the performance royalties directly to the band, in addition to the hire fee. Failure to do so without an express waiver of performance royalties from the band still leaves the venue open to civil and criminal action. Just because a band isn't affiliated with a PRO does NOT mean they aren't due royalties for performing original work.

Granted, for unknown bands with unknown music this only works out to about a buck a song, but for a four hour gig, that's $40-$50 the venue legally needs to pay you, in addition to tips, door split, guarantee, however you're being compensated. Up until recently, about the only way to get it was to take 'em to court.

BMI ( I'm a BMI artist - it's free ) has already started a program that lets songwriters and bands report what original music they've played where, ASCAP and SESAC are rolling out their own systems for this too. It's a good thing for unknowns, because now we have a way to get royalties for our music too! PRS in the UK has had a system like this for years.

I can't stress this enough to songwriters and musicians: Take action to protect your rights!

Sorry about the off-topic semi-rant, but this is one of my "hot" buttons. I've been suckered by too many unethical bar owners, and hopefully this info will help some of the younger folks out there

Any recent news/developments on this front..................Really dig Davids lessons and was hoping the tabs might someday be re-posted....

I'm in negotiation with two major music publishers. We're going over the minute details of things this week.

If things work out we probably won't have all the old songs back. But we'll be able to start adding new song lessons on a regular basis.

Thank you for the timely response.

That's great news. I know it is not a done deal yet, but sounds pretty promising.
Really dig Davids teachings, the style, pace and song selection are excellent.

Thanks for putting up the site................

I've noticed that the "take-down notice" on some of the lesson pages has changed to this:

Does that mean that the various people you are negotiating with will allow some songs to be shown only in certain countries / regions, or am I reading too much into this?

/aside: My spell-checker suggested "shakedown" as an alternate for take-down :lol:

Something may be happening soon with some of the tabs. We're waiting for final approval from different publishers on some lessons.

The new takedown notice doesn't reflect any real differences in where we're headed. Mostly I wanted to change the wording a bit and remove the link to the blog post for the time being. If someone from "Pink Floyd Music Publishers, Ltd." is looking at the site this week I don't want them to be greeted with a hundred comments from people who have strong words for all music publishers. We do want to work together after all, and it turns out it's not all about money. Trust and respect are also going to be a big part of any agreements we can make.