Re: Enough already Fox. Are we EVER going to see WKRP released?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Talmadge
The problem is that these studios think that they should be able to release these shows with the original music intact while, at the same, paying very little for the music rights.
|
I don't think so. When it's "reported" that program "X" will cost ~$50/season with music replacements *or* ~$100+ with original music it's truly hard to fully blame the studio. Now, this could all be back wind from the studio to make the music artists look bad and force them to take less money for future projects, but I feel it's really both parties being greedy. Don't get me wrong, I feel both are due "fair compensation" for their work. However, what we see as "fair" is far different than what the studios/artists see.
As far as WKRP, from what I see, the problem is that when these shows were produced there was little thought for the home video market so music wasn't licensed for that venue... just the original/repeat broadcasts. This was also done to reduce costs as even licensing for the syndication market, which *might* have helped later with home video, required more $$ up front. Now it's common for licensing to be done for original airing, syndication, and eventual home release, but back then it just wasn't done. Frequently the syndication rights were not purchased due to expense. Then there's a situation, WKRP fits this, where *some* artists are virtual unknowns when a program is first produced so the original licensing fee is very low. They later become big stars and then want exhorbitant fees when approched later about including their work in syndication/home markets. The producers of WKRP have said they only looked at original broadcast rights due to expense and to help keep the show on the air.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Talmadge
There's also the problem that these studios misinform the public regarding these music rights and this ends up alienating fans of these television shows against the music artists and the rights' holders of that music.
|
True, but it goes both ways. Both parties are basically money hungry and generally have little regard for the "little people" who truly pay their inflated saleries purchasing overpriced product. Plus I don't think people are that easily duped. Joe Public knows that both sides are at fault but the studios are very good at deflecting the blame, at least temporarily. It tends to come back around to them when the buying public has had enough and says "We don't care how much it'd cost, do it right!" only to be ignored. I've seen more comments from people saying "I'll *never* purchase a release from (insert studio here) again because they were too cheap to do it right!" than "I'll *never* purchase music from (insert artist here) because they wanted too much money for their 30 second music clip!".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Talmadge
If you want someone to blame, blame the original producers of these television shows that used so much music in the shows in the first place.
|
Yes, to a degree, but you have to look at what they were trying to accomplish and the target audience. Music in this type program generates a certain authenticity to the end product. If they had used "generic" music from the start they would have been doomed as the target audience would have essentially said "What a load of crap! Generic music on a show about a top 40 radio station?". Part of the original lure were the artists and how they were worked into the scripts. Even "The Wonder Years" would not be the same had it not used period music. This goes for just about *any* program stalled by music rights when "popular" music is the issue. The music was/is part of the charm. In the end it is typically shortsightedness and budget that tend to be the real cause of blame, although it's hard to see where all this comes into play with programs such as "The Fugitive" and "My Three Sons" who have music rights issues on the releases.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark Talmadge
Everyone keeps forgetting that these music artists and the rights holders deserve to be fairly compensated for their work. Until these television studios agree on a compensation arrangement with the music industry, this will never change.
|
Yes, but just what is "fair" compensation? I fully believe an artist *should* be compensated for their work. It's why I *purchase* music instead of just dl/ripping/etc. a CD in spite of the fact that *most* artists make their money from touring with the CD typically a loss leader/promotional item in their pocketbook. But often you'll see a multi-millionaire artist charging exhorbitant rates for one of "their" songs because they are "the greatest ever" in their eyes. Frequently it's the "back office" who is doing the negotiating and they are "looking out for the boys" (i.e. we've got to protect our phony balony jobs gentlemen). If "artists" would look at the inclusion of their work as a promotional effort (like the CD) and charge accordingly it could make everyone happy... the studio (less up front monies), the artist (could get a modest regular residual based on airings/sales, you know... like radio), and the consumer (gets the complete, original product without bastardization by greedy corporate "suits"). Of course, as you indicate, the studios also have to come to agreement and not expect to pay a pittance for licensing while charging a kings' ransom.
The long and short of it is that I blame them all.
