APPENDIX 19
Memorandum submitted by Mr David F Golightly
1. Background David Golightly
David Golightly is a freelance composer of mainly
classical music. Income is derived from commercial orchestration,
Robert Light Agency (America) commissions and some published and
performance royalties. He has worked for two years with the Advisory
group for the PRS which the company created to help it formulate
its policy for the Data and Distribution review. He is a director
of the newly formed British Academy of Composers' and Songwriters,
a member of PRS and until recently chairman of the North-West
Composers' Association.
Factual information available includes:
(a) Detailed analysis and records of the two
year PRS investigation into the public use of music and its consultation
procedures with representatives of minority genres.
(b) Records of all the Data and Distribution
recommendations.
2. Background to the Classical Music Subsidy.
(a) Definition
The "Classical Music Subsidy" is a means
by which PRS inflates the royalty pool from which money is paid
out in respect of live classical concerts. The royalty pool is
generated by licensing tariff LC, ie:
Actual Revenue from Licensing 1998 UK Classical Concerts.
Tariff LC £894,480
Classical Music Subsidy for 1998 £1,521,790
Total Distributable Royalties for 1998 UK Classical
Concerts £2,416,270
Classical Music Subsidy as a per cent of actual revenue
generated 170.13 per cent
(b) History
The "Classical Music Subsidy" was a scheme
developed by PRS to recognise the value of contemporary classical
music. It was the company's attempt to acknowledge that classical
writers by the very nature of their genre will receive a smaller
financial return per per cent of effort than an equivalent writer
of jazz or pop. Included in this scenario was a traditional perception
that classical music had an educational and social value that
made it eligible for special consideration. During its history
the Classical Music Subsidy, and its many variants, were always
a source of some concern and debate within the PRS membership
and it has been subject to a number of amendments.
(c) Source of Subsidy
12 per cent deduction collected from all live
performances, licensing tariffs LP and LC.
Subsequently, writers and publishers of all genres
performed in live venues subsidise writers of classical music.
(d) Who Benefits from Classical Music Subsidy
| PRS members | Classical writers
| 11 per cent of subsidy |
| Foreign collection societies | Classical writers
| 5 per cent of subsidy |
| Estates, (Trusts, etc) of deceased | Classical writers
| 44 per cent of subsidy |
|
| Publishers of Classical music |
| 40 per cent of subsidy |
(e) Impact of removal of Classical Subsidy
85 per cent of writers members receiving the subsidy stand to
lose approximately £100 or less in subsidy over the next
three years.
However a small proportion of members (mostly trusts and
publishers) between them receive in excess of £600,000 per
year in subsidy. This group will lose between 6 per cent and 7
per cent of their income over a three year period.
3. Debate issues raised by the removal of the Classical Subsidy
(a) "For"
1. Publishers and Trusts argue that without classical subsidy
they will not have the financial resource to support new contemporary
classical music writers.
2. Writers of classical music need the subsidy to supplement an
already reduced income. Its removal will mean that many classical
writers will not be able to focus on writing music but will have
to seek income from commercial or teaching activities.
3. The writer of a symphony of 50 minutes' duration with the subsequent
effort required for both creation and performance should be rewarded
by royalties proportional to the effort required for the creation
of a three minute pop song, ie if a symphony takes a year to write
and a pop song a day. Classical Music Subsidy of 170 per cent
on the performance royalty of the symphony is justifiable.
4. Genre performance characteristics and costs dictate frequency
of performance. A three minute pop song will have a lot of performances
over a short period of time whereas the 50 minute symphony may
only have one performance over a longer time span. The reward
for the creative effort, with regard to performance royalty should
have, as part of the equation, a subsidy which balances these
performance anomalies.
5. Contemporary classical music has a long period of gestation
to become part of the public perception of what is of value and
interest. A contemporary classical piece may take anything from
20 years to 100 years to become part of a "popular acceptance"
and hence commercial. For the publishers of contemporary classical
music this represents a considerable gamble and long-term investment.
Performance royalties, and the "Classical Music Subsidy",
at the moment help to offset this gamble.
6. Classical music has an educational and cultural value. Like
all great art it offers a replenishment of the spirit, a development
of perception and its subsequent understanding. It offers a unique
insight into those creative qualities that reflect human social
and intellectual development. Composers who endeavour to create
such music are deserving of special consideration and reward within
any society.
(b) "Against"
1. Classical Music Publishers run a commercial business and should
not expect profit making ventures, no matter what the artistic
or cultural worth, to be subsidised by a public company responsible
to a multi genre membership. If they want to be charities, register
with the Charities Commission.
Trusts have, in the past, used monies provided by the PRS Classical
Music Subsidy to support the performance and commissioning of
new contemporary classical music. However the infrastructure and
criteria used by the various trusts to apportion monies to projects,
has been subject to various peculiarities and consequently projects
that are supported tend to be within a very narrow band range.
2. Classical writers are working within a commercial industry.
If they wish to have financial reward for their endeavours they
must then take into account, at least partially, those factors
which influence public demand and perception. If these options
are discarded for artist reasons then they must be prepared, as
has happened historically, to seek alternative employment for
their main source of income, ie teaching or performing.
3. Writers of classical music already receive a substantial commission
for the creation of the music. Other genres tend not to have commissions.
Typical commissioning fees for classical composers are:
| Large Chamber Ensemble | £195-£315 per minute for music composed
|
| Orchestral Works | £300-£525 per minute for music composed
|
Hence the writing of a 50 minute symphony will already have earned
its composer approximately £25,000 before a single performance
has taken place. (It must be stressed however, the figure of £25,000
is an ideal payment scenario and that in reality commission fees
are much lower than this.)
4. The new system considers as part of the equation the amount
of actual royalty a work generates. Consequently in a two hour
concert the 50 minute symphony will receive 60 per cent of the
actual performance royalty generated and the three minute pop
song 3.6 per cent of the performance royalty generated. The remaining
royalty to be shared by any other copyright material performed
at the concert. If no other music is copyright then the total
performance royalty, less administration, is shared proportionally
between the two copyright owners. It could be argued that this
system favours classical music as the normal practice is to include
a contemporary work within a programme of non-copyright music.
Pop music however, tends to present a programme of all copyright
music.
5. Commercial pop publishers also have to invest a considerable
amount in the promotion and development of any new product, indeed
as does any company. The difference between the pop and classical
publishers is that of short or long term risk and return. It could
be argued that the long-term risks have greater return opportunities
because the consumer requirement and taste is more constant. The
pop publisher works in an environment where public taste and demand
is notoriously fickle.
6. This is one of the most valid and constant arguments presented.
Any society should recognise the value of its culture and its
artistic achievement. That is not a factor within this argument!
The issue is as to who should pay for such artistic ideals. Should
it be a multi genre organisation with a membership as diverse
as that of PRS or should it come via an increase in licensing
tariff LC (ie public contribution) or indeed should it come by
increased government support for the arts.
(c) Conclusions
1. It is without doubt that financial support for the creation
and publication of contemporary classical music is of great importance
to any society. PRS has acknowledged this requirement by its creation
of its new "New Music Fund". This however will only
provide a partial solution to the problem. Alternative sources
of funding, Arts Council grants, increased government funding,
again could provide a partial solution to the problem. However,
the main issue is with the increase of tariff LC. If this, with
government support, could be implemented, it would result in an
increase of funds available and possibly much of the present argument
would be dissipated.
2. Traditionally writers of minority genres have always had to
seek financial income from other related sources. Indeed this
precedence is not just limited to classical music but applies
to all creative activities, Art or Science.
3. The completion of any large artistic endeavour brings personal
reward and satisfaction. In an ideal society such endeavour would
also bring financial reward. Historically however this has never
been the case. Fortunately financial reward is not the only motivation
behind the creation of classical music. It must, however, be stressed
that, if in an increasing commercial and leisure orientated world,
the writing of classical music is to prosper and flourish, financial
return for its creators must be an important part of the final
equation.
4. Tied to this part of the debate must be public perception and
demand. It is true that historically classical music has a long
period of gestation, however the new payment system of actual
generated performance royalty could, in the long term, favour
those genres that are more likely to be part of a non-copyright
programme.
5. The investment policy of the publishers of different genres
has no valid influence on a debate as to whether or not PRS retains
or removes the Classical Music Subsidy. It is up to individual
managements and company policy to make valid judgment as to what
is worthy of investment and consequently offers the best long-term
return. To expect a multi genre collection society to endorse
such policy decisions with financial support does not make for
sound business practice on behalf of all the PRS membership.
6. More than at any other time in the history of music the consumer
has a wide knowledge and expertise with regard to what is acceptable
within the public domain. The growth and demand for all types
of music has increased with the development of technology. The
consumer historically has always, in the end, decided what is
of value and consequently maintained within the public domain.
The twentieth century has seen a growth and awareness of contemporary
classical music. It is this awareness and interest that offers
the best hope for contemporary writers to be acknowledged both
financially and artistically for their endeavours.
4. Summary
1. The argument that any society which values its cultural and
artistic heritage should support, financially, creators of contemporary
classical music is without doubt a strong one. The decision that
this support should come from a organisation such as the Performing
Right Society can, and should, only be made by the elected officers
and managers of PRS endorsed by a mandate from the membership
of the company. The "Classical Music Subsidy" scheme
has for years been a source of concern and dissatisfaction within
the PRS membership and this has been viewed as an unfair system
of subsidy by many of the other minority genres associated with
the company.
2. Equally many of the membership consider the LC licensing tariff
to be grossly undervalued at 3 per cent and the efforts, over
the years, by the company to increase this per cent totally inadequate.
3. The removal of the Classical Music Subsidy will, without doubt,
create some financial hardship for many contemporary classical
music writers. This support has existed for a considerable period
of time and its removal was always going to be perceived as a
threat to the income of the writers of this minority genre. This
concern however could have been dissipated somewhat if the removal
of subsidy had been linked to a strong and determined campaign
for an increase in the LC tariff.
4. The decision to remove the Classical Music Subsidy by PRS,
while being perfectly valid within the context of the overall
membership, must be seen as an ill timed and ill conceived action.
The company could not expect to reduce the income of classical
writers by the removal of a scheme established over a long period
of time without some reaction from that element of the membership.
PRS has attempted to address this potential problem by the creation
of its "New Music Scheme" and this should be viewed
and valued as a genuine attempt by the company to be fair and
support all minority genres associated with the company. However,
this whole process, as a public relations exercise, must be considered
a complete disaster. How any company could implement a series
of actions, however justifiable, which have resulted in such negative
publicity must surely warrant investigation within the management
infrastructure of the company. The removal of the Classical Music
Subsidy may be a valid action but if this had been implemented
over a longer period and linked to a campaign for the recognition
of the value of classical writers, ie increase LC, then this would
have surely shown much more concern for the long-term future of
the genre effected. It is not an issue that PRS had a right to
remove the Classical Music Subsidy. However, there still remains
a very strong question mark against its methodology, concerns
and future plans for those minority genres that represent a significant
proportion of its membership.
May 1999
| 
