Karaoke Forums

Lone, I'm not sure what shows you go to but in my area (and most likely many other areas) the crowds are full of people of all ages from 19-99. How about you others? I think I'll start a poll in the KJ area.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I think I said my shows were family centered tim, that means all age groups. When you are talking about the single largest group that has disposable income to spend on entertainment then the "Baby Boomers" are by far the largest single segment of the market. People 0 to graduation are supported by their parents. Young adults are paying off student debt. 30 and above are buying houses and raising there own families, the middle aged are planning for their retirement, or caring for their parents.

I think you are being a little over dramatic Bazza. After all that is SC's job "suits drives sales". The Prof. Harold Hill school of selling, create a crisis and then sell the solution. We got big trouble right here in River City.

Something I don't get...if all the publishers care about is getting their money (like Jim said), why are they cutting off their revenue streams? no fly list removes revenue stream. cutting off sales to the u.s. from overseas cuts off a large revenue stream. Not licensing to SC cuts off a revenue stream....
you see my point?
Youtube is going to a subscription format instead of free and some of the same ones on the no fly list (Adelle, Bon Jovi) have refused to let that happen and do not want to collect revenue from it. it seems to be anything that will make sure they make LESS money.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

You always make such WONDERFUL points!!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

The no-fly list is not created by the publishers. It is a group of writers or artists who do not approve of their work being used for karaoke. It is their intellectual property and they can decide how it is used. The publishers are responsible for enforcing their wishes.

In my opinion it could be the lack of money that karaoke has historically made them and for others it is personal or philosophical...

If you ask me, it's a bunch of crybabies that think they are so much better than their fans, their music shouldn't be sung by anyone but them. F*&^ them and their music, is what I say!!! I find it interesting that at least one of the "artists" on that list is DEAD!!!! Howard Greenfield has been dead 30 years!!! These people should be kicked in their collective asses until they cut this garbage out!!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Gee Jim I guess not much revenue has been generated since SC is still not making any new music. It would seem that this legal process of yours has not been the money maker you and Kurt hoped it would be. I remember you posting you were only earning for your part the office overhead. It makes one wonder how you will ever get back to SC's core business. Without it you are no longer a producer just a company using the legal process to make a buck. A taker not a maker.

Isn't this exactly what every single artist living or dead is doing?

Michael Jackson isn't producing anything new, yet the legal process allows his estate to generate a lot of money using his IP. Same with Elvis.

There are a lot of artists that produced something a LONG time ago that receive residual income from what they produced. It gets repackaged any number of ways ("Best Of" compilations is a good example) and then resold again.

Sound Choice repackaged their IP as a GEM and is now reselling it. And people are buying it too.

This won't register with you though and you will somehow turn it into something it is not just so you can complain about Sound Choice. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Back on ignore.

_________________
-Chris

There is a difference Chris, the artist had the original concept for the content. All SC did was take the underlying original content and put it in a karaoke disc format, nothing original about that. To make matters worse SC did this without paying the proper fees to the agents of the original artists, making them just as guilty as the pirates they are trying to sue. That is what the EMI suit is all about, as long as SC is using the legal process to license their GEM series, without making any thing new, they are still takers and not makers. They are only trying to make other takers pay them.

Pandora has a bit to say.

http://qz.com/197344/pandora-and-the-music-industry/

Under a “consent decree” issued by the Justice Department in 1941, ASCAP and the other main publishing royalty organization, BMI, which together control about 90% of all commercially available recorded music, are obliged to grant blanket licenses to anyone (mainly radio stations) requesting them. When a fee can’t be agreed, a rate-setting court decides the percentage amount of royalties these license holders pay in exchange.
+

This arrangement makes it logistically possible for the radio business to exist—a station effectively only needs to deal with two companies, rather than millions of artists, composers, and publishers, to get access to a vast array of music. And songwriters don’t have to spend time worrying about negotiating or policing the licenses for their work.
+

Unlike old-fashioned radio companies, internet-based services like Pandora are also required to pay separate performance royalties, which go to record companies, and then performing artists. In fact, this is Pandora’s single biggest cost. It paid out 49% of its revenue last year in performance royalties, compared to 4% in publishing royalties, which go to publishing companies, and eventually songwriters.

Unmuting for a bit.



This "news" would come as a big surprise to the very talented musicians and studio engineers SC employed to make more than 18,000 original recordings in every musical genre. I guess all that work and artistry was just "formatting."



All of the proper fees have been paid.

The EMI suit is about a lawyer with dollar signs in his eyes--put there by a person with a grudge against SC (who was forced to curtail his pirate operations when SC started enforcing 1:1 correspondence)--and dreams of large insurance payouts on contingent fees.



SC doesn't "lease" the GEM series.

As for not "making anything new," you can thank your pirate friends for that. SC is still trying to get paid for the stuff SC made in the first place. If SC hadn't made anything in the first place, there would be nothing to "take."

So what you are saying is that ALL karaoke manufacturers are in the same boat since they ALL take the underlying work and put it in karaoke format.



I am no attorney, but the above statement seems a tad bit out of line. The EMI suit is still in court so it has yet to be seen whether the courts rule Sound Choice did or did not do the right thing. You seem to have already made up your mind.

Oh.....

All Star isn't making anything new right now either. But they are still making money off the old stuff.
Stellar hasn't made any traditional karaoke in a few months now. Still making money off the old stuff though.

I guess they get a pass because they aren't suing anyone.

You have been complaining about Sound Choice for well over a year now and Sound Choice is still in business. All the while, other companies have gone under or have had their own issues with production. Sound Choice is still weathering the storm regardless of not producing new material. They are still selling their GEM products and people are still buying it. Their products still command a premium price in the after market. More so than any other brand. There are plenty of hosts that use and still buy Sound Choice discs regardless of what issues they may have with how SC protects their IP. Sound Choice out lived your career even.

No matter what you feel or say - every indication is that Sound Choice products are still well regarded and desirable in the industry. You aren't going to change this by posting to this forum.

_________________
-Chris

I literally just stumbled on this on Facebook. I thought this was rather appropriate for Lone Ranger's ramblings......

_________________
-Chris

Well Chris many of suits started by SC are still in court, should the accused defendants be considered innocent or have you made up your mind? According to you Chris nobody gets a pass at least until they can prove they are 100% clean. It would appear to me that nobody in this industry is getting a pass if that is the standard. Only getting out of the business would mean you are currently clean.

Unless what the person is doing is harming others, then they should be held accountable.

Come Jim you and I both know those 18,000 tracks are not originals, they are remastered karaoke imitations, just like all the other karaoke manufacturers product. I didn't know I had any pirate friends that is news to me, what you investigating me, you better hire a better detective? He can also inform you that currently I'm not in the business, so currently I'm 100% clean, since most of the material out here has questionable histories, or might currently not be under a licensing agreement from the copyright holder.

No, they are known as arrangements in the music industry, and are not the original masters. An arranger had to write the arrangement from the original which may or may not include the original instruments (they may use more or less or different types of musical instruments). The conductor then has to practice the arrangement with the orchestra until perfected, and then recorded. So this requires artistic interpretation musical talent, etc to put out a good product. This goes for not only karaoke companies but for professional orchestras, bands, Broadway styled shows, movie musicals, etc. For example Sheryl Crow's version of the Guns & Roses song "Sweet Child O' Mine" is not the original master but an arrangement, where it has to be written, practiced, and performed.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

You, again, have a fundamental misunderstanding of the music business. The fact that they are karaoke has no bearing on whether they are musical works or not. You wouldn't begin to have this argument about cover songs. By your logic, "Hound Dog" by Elvis is just a "remastered imitation" as it was a cover of the Big Mama Thornton version.

So, if SC recorded the songs completely different, that would make them "originals" and somehow better?!

The only people SC is harming is People who did not pay for the product in the first place. Those that were 1:1 were dropped from the suit no harm no foul.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.