It's a seemingly distant, though significant, historical episode, but the issues involved offer a rough parallel, perhaps, to our modern-day Internet radio conflict , as well as the looming performance-royalty battle.
In both instances, technological changes in the distribution of music spurred or are spurring attempts by those who represent artists-or who claim to represent artists-to push for new forms of compensation. The American Federation of Musicians began the ban effectively forbidding studio activities by all union musicians except for singers, who weren't considered In , recording-industry organizations such as the RIAA and Soundexchange have lobbied for drastically-increased webcasting royalty rates and charging performance royalties as well in addition to composer royalties -efforts driven in part by the explosion of new-media distribution of music in the past 10 years.
The AFM recording ban is often represented in a critical light, with union head James Petrillo pictured above depicted as a somewhat power-mad labor boss, accompanied by lamentation for the music that went unrecorded-especially bebop, which was just beginning to take hold among a small circle of jazz artists such as Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, and Thelonious Monk.
But as Scott Deveaux points out in his book The Birth of Bebop , it's highly unlikely that shellac-challenged record companies would have been rushing to put out the-then avant-garde sounds of bebop during the war years anyway. Although it is highly likely that they would have recorded the legendary Earl Hines orchestra, which included both Parker and Gillespie. And as musician and super- Organissimo -poster Jim Sangrey observed online a couple years back:. The other two bans, I'm afraid, were less focused, less successful, and were a contributing factor to changing popular taste, especially the one of Volume 41, Issue 1.
Previous Article Next Article. Article Navigation. Research Article April 01 This Site. Google Scholar. Journal of the American Musicological Society 41 1 : — Cite Icon Cite.
You do not currently have access to this content. View full article. Sign in Don't already have an account? Client Account. The suit was dismissed in October on the grounds that the parties were involved in a labor dispute and that injunctive relief was barred by the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act. This decision was sustained by the Supreme Court in February In February , the AFM presented the recording industry with a proposal through which musicians would return to recording provided that a fixed royalty was paid by the record manufacturer to the union.
The royalty would then be distributed to unemployed musicians. It requested that the National War Labor Board render a decision requiring the musicians to return to work. Ironically, when the National War Labor Board commenced hearings on July 9, to determine whether the recording ban was within its jurisdiction, the AFM took the position that the matter did not actually involve a labor dispute, contrary to the position it took before the federal court.
After many months of hearings on this issue in , the NWLB ultimately issued a back-to-work order. During the course of the strike, record labels released the stockpiled recordings they had amassed in the period prior to the strike and even re-released popular recordings they had previously sold. Smaller labels like Decca, which could not stockpile a large amount of recordings, found it impossible to survive the protracted strike without the ability to release new material.
RCA and Columbia, the two major labels without a contract at the time, were compelled to agree to make royalty payments, as the signatory record labels were gaining larger market share.
By Nov. The strike was over — and it was an overwhelming success. Ultimately, the strike was settled with the creation of the Recording and Transcription Fund, which at its height had over contributing employers paying varying amounts dependent upon the sale price of the recording.
The funds were controlled entirely by the AFM, but were used to provide free live music in parks, schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Monies were also disbursed to unemployed musicians who were members in good standing in their local. In , the Taft Hartley Act was enacted.
Coincidentally, in , the popularity of network TV revitalized the royalty issue since the networks were using recorded music without paying any royalties. This strike lasted only a year. The networks and the recording label all became participants in this fund, the Recording Musicians Performance Trust Fund, which still exists under a slightly different name and performs the same basic functions as the disbanded fund.
See www.
0コメント