LAST BMI WORDS 1

I’m shocked at the naiveté and lack of knowledge put out by Margaret Lyons (see "BMI, Back and Forth," May 20) and her unnamed cohorts on the messageboards regarding this whole BMI-license issue. So I will say for a second time that BMI supports all songwriters who receive some sort of airplay and pay royalties accordingly, not just to entrenched old-school major-label artists. Someone spoke of "the whole equation of music chang[ing] to one where the musicians reacquire the playing field." Well, BMI can play a big, positive part in that because through monitoring of airplay (on radio/TV or at venues) composers can earn a living independent from whatever oppressive label or management deals they may have been strong-armed into signing. Maybe a composer’s work never gets played on one of these big corporate radio stations in town, but if that composer performs onstage a lot, that will also contribute to more royalty income. If venues are not licensed and don’t pay their fees, there is less money to distribute, plain and simple.

As for Margaret’s personal attacks on me — if she thinks she can insult me by calling me greedy, she’s wrong. I’m proud that I look out for my own financial interests and, indirectly, those of other composers, and if she wants to call that greed, fine, but it’s a flimsy attempt to garner support for her stance. The part about referring to BMI as "my goons," like they’re my own personal SS division, is equally flimsy. One that note, take a look at yourself, Marg. Bottom line is: Acoustic Coffee is a venue, not different from any other, and venues rip off artists all the time, sometimes blatantly by not handing over agreed upon cash, or sometimes subtly by not owning up to their responsibility of paying their license fees. You hide behind an ideology, claiming you foster creativity for all levels of performers, and maybe that’s true, but venues all over the world can make the same claim, so why are you exempt and they are not? Face it, you use composers to get people in the door to sell them coffee, and that’s a service you should pay for like every other venue should, both directly by compensating the performer, and indirectly by paying your license fees.

And by the way, when my material is performed by someone else, I am flattered, but flattery doesn’t pay the bills.

John Graveside

Portland

LAST BMI WORDS 2

Acoustic Coffee’s outrage over strong-arm tactics by BMI and ASCAP strikes a chord with me (see "Acoustic Coffee Fights Back," by Sara Donnelly, April 29; and "BMI, Back and Forth," May 20). The mantra of "artists’ rights" too often overshadows a business and legal framework (music copyright) that rips off artists in many more ways than a small venue — where nonfamous artists sing songs by famous artists for a few dozen people — ever could.

It’s true that many songwriters get royalties from the work that performance-rights organizations do. But more don’t. And among those who do receive checks, the ratio of feast to famine is incredibly lopsided. Performance-rights organizations need a large client base to justify their existence as they go about collecting license revenue from venues, and distributing most of it to themselves and the subset of artists who are getting lots of airplay. In my experience, too few composers consider whether the moralist premise underlying performance licensing is — when applied to them — more than sophistry.

Copyright is supposed to balance the interests of creators and users of creative works, but in music law this idea became a quaint relic long ago. The law of performance licensing was written by, and is continually updated by, the very people who profit from it in gross disproportion to most songwriters and performers. This is also true of sound-recording royalties.

However, I must agree with John Graveside’s point that Acoustic Coffee had a responsibility to learn about music licensing before they opened their doors. It’s just as central to their business as obtaining a beer-and-wine license or passing a health inspection. A venue that thumbs its nose at BMI and ASCAP by running an original-music-only joint earns the "Right On" award. Saying you never heard of BMI before they began demanding license fees doesn’t.

Dan Skolnik, Esq.

Westbrook

LET’S INCUBATE 1

Great piece on Eder’s $500,000 creative economy incubator (see "Let’s Get Growing," by Sara Donnelly, May 20). After reading so many different takes on what should be done with the money, I think the only fair thing to do would be to develop a fund open to making grants. That way, theoretically, in the end those who have put the most time into submitting their grant applications are rewarded with a certain amount of money. Thus, the resources are allocated to those that either want or deserve them most. In addition, this would ensure that the money is going to a number of different causes as opposed to just music or visual art or theater. This is just sound economic theory applied to an already vibrant art scene that deserves a financial boost.

Will Renner

Student, London School of Economics

LET’S INCUBATE 2

I am an artist recently returned to Portland after graduating from the Ringling School of Art and Design in Sarasota, Florida. I wrote the Portland Press Herald’s art column two years ago before I left for my two years in Florida. I also rented studio space on Danforth Street, so I can relate to all the issues associated with the arts in Portland (see "Let’s Get Growing, by Sara Donnelly, May 20).

Portland has tremendous potential as a top arts community in the United states. Artists have been struggling for years to make this happen. These funds might be the fuel to light a fire. Portland needs an arts center (a great model might be the Montpelier Arts Center in Laurel, Maryland). Artists here rent affordable studio space, classrooms are available, a store sells work of all participating artists, and galleries have ongoing shows. The arts center is always open to the public, who are able to walk through the building and see artists at work. Children’s programs are also readily available.

I prefer to work in a place away from my residence. Studio space in Portland is unaffordable, yet I see "for lease" signs everywhere in downtown. The waterfront has a number of boarded-up buildings. Doesn’t the community know that artists are important in attracting visitors to a city and creating revenue? The city is throwing away an opportunity if they don’t place this topic at the top of the agenda and make something happen.

Jane Halliwell

Portland

LET’S INCUBATE 3

You wrote a great article about John Eder’s $500,000 allocation for a creative economy incubator (see "Let’s Get Growing," by Sara Donnelly, May 20), and, hence, it has truly inspired me. I agree with many of the commenting local artists that this money should be used to create a multi-faceted complex. A place like this would create a Neverland of artist collaborations. The possibilities would be endless. Personally, I am a fan of many aspects of art, but my direct experience is rooted in dance and musical theater. Both of these communities also suffer greatly — not to mention that the dance and theater community still live quite separately, which is an absurd reality.

All of the commenting artists brought up good points, but I have to think that all of these current problems could be solved by creating this united hub, this arts complex. Once you draw this many people into the same place, for the same cause, individual strengths will be revealed, revealing people who want to create art-community improvements, and not just art itself. This hub can promote routine meetings for brainstorming, and organization to allocate efforts, which could all produce amazing results.

I would love to volunteer my time to join efforts to bring this arts complex to Portland.

Thressa J. Willett

Portland

AW, SHUCKS

Hey thanks for coming down to check out the new place. Also thanks for your support, and the write-up (see "The Fall and Rise of Geno’s," by Sam Pfeifle, Lisa Craig, and Matthew Robbins, May 27). We are looking forward to playing our part in bringing Portland a bigger and (sometimes) better music/art scene.

I am relatively new to Portland and find that this city — well maybe not the city itself, but the people in this city — really give full-on support to a diverse range of arts. I think the artists feel the love and in turn give it back through rocking harder, exposing their art, and bringing whatever creative juices they have to the public to enjoy.

With the support of rags like the Phoenix, Portland has a chance right now to do this. With not only Geno’s, but the other venues (currently SPACE, and hopefully soon the new Skinny!), and the wizards that are patching this scene together behind the curtains, there’s plenty of love for all.

So here’s to a summer of great music art and all kinds of things that Portland just hasn’t had a chance to see before!

Brian Stone

Soundguy, Geno’s

Portland