For the last year and a half, MFM has offered free membership. This was an attempt to promote MFM to musicians in a risk-free manner. The idea served its purpose: it presented MFM and its new approach to securing musician’s rights to an understandably skeptical public.
According to MFM bylaws, the criterion for membership has been simple. Members must be working musicians or have some connection to the music industry. There are three classes of members:
Class I: entitled to one vote, $120/year
Class II: not entitled to vote, $60/year
Class III (free membership): not entitled to vote.
At the recent Board of Director’s election meeting, MFM President Sohrab Saadat Ladjavardi reported that MFM is operating at a loss. The 2017 fiscal year ended with a deficit of $7,437. To cover the operating cost Saadat made a loan of $6,710 to MFM. This is the third year that MFM is in the red.
This is due in part to the low increase in membership, and the free membership offer, which attempted to promote MFM to musicians in a risk-free manner. However, the idea of free membership clearly has the unwanted after-effect of failing to motivate actual or prospective members to invest time and effort into accomplishing our mutual objectives.
Since 2015 MFM has accumulated a total loss of $20,853 which will increase in 2019 if an increase in membership doesn’t help to off-set this trend. As a result, starting January 1st, 2019, the free membership tier will be limited to six months without any benefits, except having access to the member portal. With the exception of the MFM Public Musicians Forums, all forthcoming events will charge an admission.
Again: MFM is a membership organization and can only be financed primarily by membership dues. To recoup the three consecutive losses and this year’s loss, MFM needs up to 300 Class I registered members (this minimum increase will mean that Saadat will still need to work without a salary).
An increase in membership will mean an increase in income for MFM and the financial capacity to pay salaries to MFM staff (including Saadat himself, who has been putting his own money into MFM). This will inevitably mean an increase in the services MFM can offer its membership, and the power our voices will have in governing our artistic and financial affairs. Increased membership will mean economic and political power for musicians. This is long overdue.
The MFM website serves as a virtual community for our members, creating a network and offering valuable resources (i.e. information on health insurance, pension, instrument insurance, intellectual property, venues, touring, links to musician- friendly businesses). The site will feature a newsletter keeping our members up to date with upcoming events, relevant news, and features on what other members are up to. It will also feature a referral section, which will connect our members to potential job opportunities such as performances or teaching music lessons. The website will be updated regularly, and will use input from our members to ensure we are serving your needs.
As a non-profit organization, MFM is always looking to partner with companies, organizations, and anyone who believes in our cause and advocates for musicians’ rights. Through these endorsements, members have access to exclusive discounts. And the exclusive members-only portal will engage our members and promote constant activity and networking related to our music business endeavors.
Roger Blanc Jr the videographer
Furthermore, MFM has, and will continue to, play a vital role in influencing this nation’s lawmakers, and political and corporate leaders in our favor. Our support and advocacy of the Music Modernization Act (MMA) is a prime example of this.
It is important to note how MFM differs from other musician’s organization. For example, the Local 802 Musician’s Union primarily represents instrumentalists, and rarely deviates from Broadway, orchestras, and jazz musicians. MFM has no such constraints; it represents all genres (including DJs and even spoken word artists), and organizes across boundaries of genre and level of professional status.
It is also important to note some of MFM’s unique statistics. Most of our members are located in New York State. However, we have members in New Jersey, Seattle WA, Chicago IL, Washington DC, Austin TX, Boston MA, Florida, and West Virginia. We also began to make inroads in international membership. MFM now has members in France, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, and South Africa.
I’d like to bring up another issue that needs to be addressed. MFM’s statistics show that we presently have a total of 22 female members; comprising 26% of our membership. It is hoped that this number increases. The rights and concerns of female musicians are being addressed in a woefully inadequate manner. MFM hopes to change this, and invites female members to join our ranks and be represented on an equal footing with men.
When you consider what MFM has accomplished over the last three years, and the luminaries we have attracted (e.g. Dr. Cornel West, Jimmy Owens, Billy Harper, Joe Lovano, Marc Ribot, Maria Schneider, David Liebman, and the late Steve Gordon Esq., to name just a few) it’s surprising this was possible. This is especially astonishing when you consider that the organization is operating without the necessary financial and human resources needed to accomplish these goals.
Despite this impressive progress, MFM is not realizing its immense potential. MFM cannot provide its services to the music community without numbers.
David and Stefan Andemicael
Membership in MFM means becoming a decisive and powerful part of the next phase of the DIY trend in the music business. We have too long been at the mercy of corporations, politicians, and others who have profited from our work, and who have prevented us from having control over our own affairs and gaining a just profit from our own efforts. MFM’s infrastructure and model of operation holds the potential to change this to our favor.
#UnityInTheMusicCommunity is not an empty slogan. It is an indication that we can only achieve our personal and collective objectives, and insure fair business practices in the music industry, if we act as a collective. MFM is in a perfect position to do this.
MFM brought 2018 to a close with its annual board member vote, a recap of MFMs achievements during the past year, and a look ahead to 2019. The meeting began with MFM President Sohrab Saadat Ladjavardi giving an overview of MFM’s achievements in 2018:
1. Creating #UnityIntheMusicCommunity: an additional slogan to match and augment our first slogan of #MakingMusicIsAProfession.
2. The addition of new Board of Directors members: Billy Harper. David Belmont became a Board member and Vice President. Melanie Frey became the first female on the MFM Board of Directors,
3. Saadat was invited by musicians in Kingston, NY to advocate MFM,
4. Saadat and Harper have consistently ran and hosted the monthly Public Musicians Forums,
5. MFM had a successful Talk event in August with Chicago authors Randy Chertkow and Jason Feehan (“Making Money with Music”)
6. MFMs membership increased by 25% with 86 new members.
7. Advocating and supporting the Music Modernization Act (MMA).
Sohrab speaking
After this overview, Saadat gave a presentation of MFM’s new website design. A remake / upgrade of the MFM website was made with GoDaddy, This is a work in progress; some of the functions (as of this writing) are still being addressed The new design will allow easy and clear communication of all aspects of MFM, it’s membership benefits and responsibilities, and MFM’s objectives. Some detail was devoted to the websites three membership tiers. As of this writing, the payment options on the website are not yet operational. This will be fixed soon.
The following MFM benchmarks and objectives for 2019 were presented:
1. The primary focus will be expansion of membership, especially female musicians. The more members MFM has, the better it can serve them.
2. Outreach through an effective PR campaign, including ads, social media activity, and branding,
3. Start alliances/cooperation with other organizations, communities, music schools (Jan. 29th 2019 will be the first meeting with the New School).
4. Continue reaching out to musician communities outside of NY, including our new friends in Kingston, NY.
5. Continuing the Public Musician Forums with Billy Harper,
6. Web development: improving the member portal of our website, providing members access to information, social interaction and networking,
7. Expanding our workshops / talk events for our members, led by experts in their respective fields. Six events are being planned in 2019. This provides help to existing membership and draws new members. This includes organizing and promoting a MFM Festival, an annual music event, we hope to begin in December 2019. This event aims to expand membership, raise public awareness and raise funds for MFM,
8. Enlisting experts in marketing and branding with the same rationale as the festival,
9. MFM plans to increase membership to no less than 200 new members,
10. Looking for sponsors and other sources of income for MFM.
Ken Hatfield speaking
After Saadat offered a report about MFM’s finances (read more in P.2), the next phase of the meeting’s agenda was devoted to Ken Hatfield asking questions regarding the professional status of members, and an overview of the MMA. He discoursed on the present state of affairs with music sales, the devaluation of music, and how the MMA is attempting to fix this. Hatfield ended his presentation by offering the following guidelines to remedy injustices left unaddressed by the Music Modernization Act: reform of section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Specifically, a reform of section 512 (a safe harbor provision) of the DMCA.
David Belmont speaking
After this lengthy discourse, MFM Vice PresidentDavid Belmont spoke briefly about his background in music activism, his reasons for joining MFM, MFM’s achievements in 2018, the growth of the board, and the importance of a more aggressive pursuit of increasing MFM’s membership.
The next item was the annual board election. The voting was done according to Bylaw Section 1.10 and we had a quorum of more than 10% of total membership. Of those who voted, 2 were in person (2.3% of MFM’s membership), 32 voted via email, (37% of MFM’s membership), 2 were call-ins (2.3% of MFM’s membership), and 50 were abstention (58.4% of MFM’s membership). The result will be announced officially in the next newsletter.
The remainder of the meeting reverted, as it often does, to spirited arguments and discourse.
The video of the meeting will be posted in the member portal of MFM’s website, and on MFM’s social media platforms.
MFM is a work in progress. But through a large, active membership, MFM will increasingly gain the credibility and the power to favorably influence the conditions for musicians.
Billy Harper, Sohrab, Roger Blanc and Jimmy Owens (photo by Dawod Kringle)
On Tuesday, March 27th, MFM held its fourth Public Musicians Forum at Yeoryia Studios in New York run by Billy Harper and MFM’s President Sohrab Saadat Ladjevardi.
Saadat opened the meeting by bringing up the recent gun control protests. Here are a group of mostly teens who, overnight, organized a nationwide protest. He wondered aloud why Musicians can’t organize like that. The idea of a mass march for musician’s rights is a bit idealistic (let’s face it: musicians are not easily disposed toward the kind of organizational skills such a march would require). But it’s also not an impossibility.
Saadat also stated that he wishes to redefine MFM’s mission with more clarity. MFM is an association; it’s financed by its members. This, and other contours and characteristics of MFM need to be clearly explained so as to avoid misconceptions.
The meeting was largely devoted to women musicians’ rights and issues. This is something Saadat had wanted to address for a long time.
Melanie Frey (photo by Dawoud Kringle)
MFM member Melanie Frey offered a presentation, and spoke on women’s issues in music. There is what is best described as “Unconscious Sexism” in music industry hiring. It is something that is often unconsciously practiced by people of good will, without their consciously realizing it. Yet others deliberately intend to discriminate against women.
In the April 2017 issue of International Musician magazine, “The gender gap of instrumental musicians has changed noticeably since 1978. It began narrowing significantly in the early 1990s, and the percentage of women musicians in orchestras has climbed to 46%-49% of the total musician pool in the two decades since. Most attribute this improvement to the advent of screened auditions.”
Orchestras implemented a process of screened auditions. Judges are prevented from knowing the gender or ethnicity of the person auditioning before and during the audition. Some discussion was devoted to this, and how it may be applied to the process for hiring for jazz club dates. Jazz ensembles and venues do not operate the way classical orchestras do: screened auditions will not produce the same result. With the exception of Jazz At Lincoln Center Orchestra adopting and new selecting procedures for jazz orchestra in 2016. This change was achieved by San Francisco’s jazz musician, activist and Chairperson of JazzWomen and Girls Advocates Ellen Seeling.
It was suggested that where the process goes wrong is that musicians only hire who they know or someone recommended by a friend. This process often starts – and ends with men. There is, of course, no easy way to circumvent this.
Frey handed out a few documents she’d prepared, and discoursed on four general related topics:
Unconscious sexism in the music industry
Music instructors discouraging
Salesmen in music stores belittling female musicians
Emails sent to Saadat regarding these women’s issues
Michelle Shocked (photo by Dawoud Kringle)
The first and second topics seem to be interconnected and interchangeable. The dynamics of how female musicians (and musicians of diverse ethnicity) were discussed. There are multiple factors that determine how female musicians are seen and how they prosper. It was mentioned that the best way for female musicians to prosper may be for them to produce themselves.
The third topic dealt with presumptions about what a woman can and can’t play. Bottom line, just like some teachers, some music salesmen are idiots. Such people may exploit the vulnerability of women or young people, students, or people of milder temperament. Part of it is how women are educated, how they play (hard vs soft), the actual nature of the instrument they’re playing, the nature of the music that’s being played, etc.
The fourth topic centered around a letter from Francesca Tanksley. It was read aloud. Her letter addressed important points such as:
Human beings having the right to be treated according to inherent human dignity.
We have purpose, dreams, and aspirations, and are not mere objects that are used as a means to another person’s ends. In treating that person as less than human, one has stolen from that person, and from oneself, our inherent human dignity.
We relate to each other by seeing in each other those human attributes – our dreams and aspirations – that we have all been given.
Unconditionally acknowledging the undeniable fact that whosoever de-humanizes others de-humanized themselves. And whoever uplifts others, uplifts themselves.
The general consensus is that women need to stand up for themselves. Expecting some men to change their misogynistic ways without a more proactive (and possibly aggressive) holding of one’s ground in the face of such bullying is probably unrealistic.
On a personal note, I must state that the problems facing female musicians can very easily be solved with the simple foundation of logic, common sense, and good manners. If a woman can play the music well, she should be allowed to do so without having to qualify herself beyond her musicianship. This and embodying an attitude of common courtesy and respect. For years – millennia – this has not been the case with much of humanity. The thing that is needed is, to quote Tanksley’s letter, “a cultural shift in the way men view women, the way men view their fellow men, as well as in the way women view themselves, and their fellow women.” It’s simple; but the inevitable fact of human hubris and stupidity need to be overcome.
Carla Maria Ruppy, Blue Ray, Ken Hatfield and Jimmy Owens (photo by Dawoud Kringle)
The final part of the meeting was devoted to the Music Modernization Act (MMA). Ken Hatfield, who just joined MFM’s Advisory Committee, spoke about this at some length. Hatfield mentioned that if MMA is passed, it will probably not get a lot of publicity. So we all need to pay close attention as things develop, especially regarding our concerns with it’s problems (which were addressed at the previous MFM Jazz Musicians Meeting #3). Hatfield also suggested we support the points that MusicAnswers advocates regarding our issues with the current version of MMA, such as (1) the makeup of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) Board and (2) issues of transparency (i.e. the right to audit the distribution of the funds, especially those that are unidentified). For more details on these issues please watch MusicAnswers’ Maria Schneider‘s video here explaining the issues and advising how to take action to improve the MMA by emailing to members of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives and a few key senators.
The pros and cons of the MMA are a detailed subject requiring a separate article. A great deal of it was touched upon in the review of the MFM Public Musicians Forum #3.
On Ka’a Davis and Reggie Sylvester (photo by Dawoud Kringle)
The fundamental changes that are occurring in the music business are rewriting the rules of how our business is conducted – and the fundamental attitudes toward music as a profession. It is essential to be on top of these issues. This is one of the reasons MFM exists; music professionals must take control of their own affairs and secure their own power in order to survive and avoid the exploitation they’d endured in decades past.
Let’s welcome Ken Hatfield to the MFM Advisory Committee who brings a wealth of knowledge of “the business.” He’s been attending several MFM meetings and did a presentation on the Music Modernization Act issues last month.
He shares with us the belief in a fair and sustainable musical eco-system in which all the participants share equally in the revenues generated by the use of our content especially via the platforms that the tech companies have created and maintain in order to disseminate our music to the audience that wants to consume it.
A Short Bio
Guitarist and composer KEN HATFIELD is a leading proponent of jazz played on the classical guitar. In 2006 the ASCAP Foundation recognized his significant contributions by presenting him with its prestigious Vanguard Award for “innovative and distinctive music that is charting new directions in jazz.”
Ken has released nine CDs as a leader that feature him performing his original compositions, either as a soloist or with his ensembles. He has published six books of his compositions, as well as his instructional book Jazz and the Classical Guitar: Theory and Application. Ken’s compositional experience covers a wide range of styles and instrumentations, including jazz works for his own ensembles, solo classical guitar works, choral works, and ballet scores for Judith Jamison, The Washington Ballet Company, and the Maurice Béjart Ballet Company. He has also written scores for television and film, including Eugene Richards’ award-winning documentary but, the day came.
By Dawoud Kringle (with Ken Hatfield and Sohrab Saadat Ladjavardi)
Photo by Dawoud Kringle
On Tuesday, February 27th, the MFM Jazz Musicians Meeting #3 was held at Yeoria Studio. Organized by Sohrab Saadat Ladjevardi and Billy Harper, the agenda of the meeting was threefold. 1. Ken Hatfield and Sohrab Saadat Ladjevardi were to discuss the Music Modernization Act (MMA). 2. The rights and problems of women musicians. 3. Organizing a Musicians’ March in NY and DC in 2019.
The attendance of these meetings is growing. Attendees this night included Ricky Ford, Cynthia Scott, Stanley Banks. Jimmy Owens, Robbi Kumalo, Bill Saxton, Melanie Frey; and Gene Ghee.
Saadat opened the meeting with a brief introduction. Hatfield hit the ground running with his discourse about the Music Modernization Act, and other bills that affect the future of digital music production, distribution, and remuneration for creators. Ken Hatfield handed out a document he’d prepared (later, Saadat joked that he’d asked Hatfield to prepare a one or two page document; Hatfield came with 10 pages). This document formed the main body of his discourse, and it covered a lot of ground.
A wide variety of interrelated subjects and problems were brought up, discussed, analyzed, dissected, and argued over. This began with a historical perspective (including the fact that present copyright laws have remained almost unchanged since 1909). This overview included:
1. The 1996, the Digital Music Copyright Act (DMCA), a US copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization. It criminalizes production of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted material (this became a necessity with the advent of the Internet; and the nature of digital music medium). One of the biggest problems with DMCA is section 512 (a.k.a. the “SAFE HARBOR” provision). This provision makes it impossible to sue the digital service providers (DSPs) when they violate our copyrights. Elimination (or as some propose revision / restriction) of section 512 would allow musicians a leverage similar to how the tobacco companies could be held financially accountable for the death and disease their product creates.
2. The Fair Play Fair Pay act (HR1836) which amends federal copyright laws to extend copyright owner’s rights to include the exclusive right to perform or authorize the performance of a recording publicly through the means of any audio transmission. It proposes that terrestrial broadcasters will have to pay the same four concerns that digital broadcasters now have to pay. Previously terrestrial broadcasts only generated revenues for composers and publishers (though at higher rates than those paid now by DSPs) while digital service providers pay (1) composers and (2) publishers…… each at much lower rates. Composers and publishers currently get 1/12th of what record companies and performers get) and also pay (3) owner(s) of the mechanical rights to the sound recording (generally a record company) and (4) the performing artist (i.e. the featured artists). Under FPFP all broadcasts would pay roughly the same (or similar) concerns and amounts. That is the game changer here.
3. The Classics Act: HR 3301, which was initiated by a bipartisan group of senators. If passed, HR 3301 could close major loopholes in US copyright law that left Artists out of the royalty payments of digital radio play in platforms such as Pandora and Sirius XM. Currently artists are not paid for their contributions/performances of digital broadcast of any recording created before 1972. This is the main loophole from the DMCA that the Classics Act closes.
4. The Case Act HR 3945. Copyright law is adjudicated in Federal Courts. Federal litigation is so expensive and complicated that most creators and small businesses cannot afford to enforce their own rights. Because of this, infringements regularly go unchallenged, and many creators feel disenfranchised by the copyright system. HR 3945 addresses the problem of federal courts having exclusive jurisdiction over copyright claims. Content creators will for the first times since DMCA be able to sue those that infringe upon our copyright and mechanical rights in small claims court for amounts up to $30,000 U.S.D. This also means that those guilty of infringement will (1) be limited regarding their delaying tactics, and (2) they will be more likely to have to pay and therefore will settle and hopefully cease and desist their infringements.
Photo by Sohrab Saadat Ladjevardi
Photo by Dawoud Kringle
5. The Music Modernization Act. From legislative perspective this bill is important because 1. It is an omnibus bill that consolidates many of the best provisions of its predecessors into one bill and 2. It has substantial support from the major players in the music community, including ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, AFofM, and NMPA. The MMA promises to reform music licensing in ways that are advantageous to songwriters and composers in the modern digital age.The bill is, as of this writing, a work in progress. As such, some of the problems have yet to be worked out. The pros of the MMA include the fact that DSPs have finally agreed that they have to pay for every play/stream/broadcast use of our music (identified and unidentified). This money will go to the music community and no longer stay with the DSPs (as currently happens under the issuance of Notice Of Intentions (NOI) in lieu of or at least delaying our payments). This money will be distributed by a Collective (in some versions it is called the Mechanical Licensing Collective or MLC). This collective will be under the Library of Congress who will grant it a charter of 5 years duration.
This Collective will not only distribute tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars to writers and publishers, but it will also oversee (and create or choose/contract/outsource the creation of) a data base that all the DSP’s will rely on to identify and pay us accordingly for any and all of the music that the DSPs play/stream broadcast etc. or otherwise use to generate revenue for their business. The cons include the fact that the aforementioned collective as presently configured will be comprised of 10 publisher members and only 4 composer/writer members(and the publishers want to choose the writer members). There is little or no transparency for independent self-published writers /composers because the right to audit the Collective is limited to the Big Publishers (which means that Sony, Warner, and Universal will not only have the lions share of board members on the collective, but will be the only ones that can audit the Collective’s disbursements of the money they receive from the DSP’s). Additionally, it has been widely reported that these big publisher / record companies have substantial investments in several of the biggest streaming entities. This configuration of the Collective is clearly unfair when the writers are entitled (by law) to at least 50% of that revenue.
Photo by Dawoud Kringle
The music community will need to decide individually and collectively if we can live with the basic procedural intent of MMA while working to fix the issues we have with it before it is voted on by Congress. The DSPs see these issues as an internal disagreement within the music community (between publishers and writers), and do not care how we divide the money that they have agreed for the first time to pay us. The publishers may need this deal more than we do. However, it may be advantageous to accept the good provisions of the MMA, and deal with its problems later (with the exceptions of the Collective Board configuration and section 512, the Safe Harbor provision, which are unacceptable). Every single musician that writes any of their own material, and/or creates/produces their own recordings needs to educate themselves about the MMA and the 512 section of the DMCA and determine where they stand. Then they need to act accordingly to proactively help create a sustainable musical eco-system that we can all live with and prosper within.
Photo by Dawoud Kringle
The scope of this analysis is too complex to be sufficiently presented here; and is not complete. MFM is at work examining the dynamics of this, and especially the Music Modernization Act, which holds great promise. This publication will present MFM’s findings and position on these issues.
Hatfield brought up a few other related issues of importance that musicians need to be aware of. This includes the necessity of ISRC (International Standard Recording Code) codes, which will help to ensure that we get paid once a fair system is finally established.
Photo by Sohrab Saadat Ladjevardi
The meeting was a fast paced and detailed analysis of the present situation we musicians are facing, and what can be done using the resources available to us. The streaming companies are willing to pay; though the details regarding method(s) of distribution of funds is still being fought out.
The subject of MMA was too complex a subject to simply skim over. And it brought a great number of other questions to the surface which has yet to be answered. Because of this, the other subjects of the meeting’s agenda (the rights and problems of women musicians, and organizing a Musicians’ March in NY and DC in 2019) were tabled for the time being.
In my review of the 2nd Jazz Musicians Meeting, I mentioned how MFM had reached a new milestone in its development as a musician’s advocacy organization. This night, that milestone was firmly established.
A handful of attendees agreed to work within the framework of a working group to address and act upon these issues. While the question remains whether they want to that privately or under the umbrella of MFM, an important step has been taken. This is where MFM can get into the game and affect real change for the music community.
While much work (both theoretical and practical) lay ahead, progress is being made. The agenda of MFM is no longer a mere theory. It is beginning to work.
