question the composer of an opera a symphony or of a song to be performed in a broad 4290344
The composer of an opera, a symphony, or of a song to be performed in a Broadway musical will write out each word and each note exactly as it is to be played or sung, and will copy right this written composition. These authors then have a right to be compensated each time their musical piece is performed, or each time a recording of it is sold, and there arc standard contracts and arrangements in the music industry that determine how this compensation will be calculated. Jazz, rock, and folk music arc more improvisational. The composer of the musical part of a rock song, for example, may sing or write out a melody, specify a series of chord changes, and then have other musicians improvise much of the background music that accompanies the singing of the song. The traditional practice in this part of the music world has been to specify the name of the “composer(s)” at the time that the song is recorded, and the copy right for the sound recording is then held by the specified composers), even though other musicians might have contributed in some way to the final “sound” of the recorded song. These other musicians are, of course, compensated in sonic other way at the time of the recording. Recently, however, a legal case in the United Kingdom challenged this traditional practice. A rock song that was a big hit and that became a classic had a distinctive organ solo. The keyboardist for the band that recorded the song was not listed as one of the composers of the song. Years after the original recording, he sued in court to be legally considered one of the composers of the song. He argued that the success of the song was partially if not largely due to his solo (and he was probably right). He wanted to be awarded a third of all past and future royalty payments owed to the composers of this song. The court ruled in his favor, that is, they agreed that his solo had added substantial value to the song, and that, contrary to traditional practice, he deserved to be compensated with author's royalties on sales of the sound recording of this song. This ruling, if not overturned, creates a precedent that applies to copy rights awarded for improxisational music in Britain. Henceforth, it is possible that even though you write the melody and chord changes for a song, if one of the musicians in your band can convince a court that he or she has added value to your song through his superior musicianship, he or she can claim some of the composer royalties for sales of the recording on which he or she played. Will this decision in any way affect creative output? Will there be more/better music produced because of this or worse/less music produced? Will behavior of people in the music world (e.g., bands recording songs, or the backup musicians who are hired by or otherwise collaborate with songwriters) will change in any way at all as a result of this decision, and if so. will the changes be for the better or for the worse? Does decision result in a clearer definition of a property right, or a more ambiguous one? Remember that the Coase theorem asserts that if transaction costs are zero, a change in the assignment of property rights will not affect efficiency. Does the Coase Theorem apply to this situation? Think about the negotiations that might take place when a musician who has written a song is working with other musicians to get it recorded.