HISTORY: the relationship between the MU and the
recording industry mainly in the form of
Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL)
CONTEXT: the role of government, musicians, and
the Union itself in the breakdown of previously
established relations.
4 main points of interest:
Copyright Act (1911)- the early recording and
copyright industries
The formation of PPL in 1934 and immediate
aftermath
The MU and PPL agreement of 1946
The 1988 report of the Monopolies and Mergers
Commission
1907-9: first downturn within British recording
industry
1909 – Copyright Committee
1911 – Copyright Act
1914 – formation of Performing Right Society (PRS)
by music publishers
1920s/ 30s – boom and bust in recording industry;
decline in employment for musicians
Decca and EMI were the two major record
companies
The Gramophone Company vs. Carwardine (1933) –
established right for manufacturer’s fee for public
performance.
PPL established to pursue and collect income in
1934.
Immediately sought deals with publishers and
musicians
Ex-gratia payment to performers – 20% of nett
income
Economic pressures on MU – growth in recording
industry – seen as threat to ‘conventional’ musical
employment (influence of AFM)
PPL to pay Union: 10% (first 2 years) and 12.5%
(thereafter) of net income to compensate session
players
PPL and BBC agreement on “needletime” in 1947 -
First PPL payment to MU in 1951 – prompts debate over
how to use it.
EC decide to use it “for benefit of all musicians” and not
distribute to those who played on them: minority of
members were recording; majority would suffer from
unrestricted use.
Fear of being seen as “yellow” union
Loans and grants to orchestras, etc. – emphasis on live
music
Music PromotionCommittee – cf.AFM’s Music
PerformanceTrust Fund
Internal and External impact of PPL funds / MMC
MMC report on Collective Licensing (1988) –
implemented by UK government in 1989.
Scard: “The Union’s controls over
needletime, employment quotas and the policy of
not allowing records to accompany live
performance all disappeared overnight.” (1991)
PPL payments had become substantial: £1.3 million
in 1987.
MU also had £5.1m reserve in Special Account
Post-1989 dispute with PPL over distribution of
funds from point of MMC report.
In 1994, Union received £8.5m to distribute to
musicians who played on sessions and whose work
had been broadcast post 1989.
Formation of PAMRA in 1996 to distribute funds
Destabilizing period: loss of control over
membership? (Challenges to leadership from
Freddie Staff / session musicians culminating in
election/ Scard’s defeat)
Range of employment and anti-Union legislation
beginning in 1980s – secret ballots, limits on strikes
and weakening / end of the closed shop
“media unions were seen as the last bastions of
Union power” (Scard, 1991)
Government policy: “reinjection of marketisation in
to State owned enterprise and the rooting out of
restrictive practices” (McIlroy, 2009: 32)
MU had benefited from both in MU/PPL/BBC
agreements
McIlroy on neoliberalism: “marked a return to
human nature, individualism and
entrepreneurialism, rather than collectivism and
dependency culture” (1995: 76)
Individual gain embraced by some union members –
encouraged by press and “ambulance chasing”
lawyers.
Since 1946, Union involved in pursuit of
performance and performing rights with PPL –
outcome to benefit of record companies and
individual musicians. . .
These rights were not accepted by all countries and
until 1996 were not fully enshrined in UK law.
Rosen: use of collective bodies to protect the
“creativeness of individuals” (2012: xiii)
Impact of 1988 MMC report: “for the benefit of all
musicians” no longer an acceptable ethos for
government, members or Union leaders.
Emphasis now “less on the collective context for
Union activity and more on services that can be
provided to individual members” (Ackers et al,1996:
56)
McIlroy: “industrial relations and trade unions were
no longer adversarial” (2009:50)