Talk:Music publisher (popular music)

Move to Music publishing
Move to music publishing? I think so - compare Publishing, Editing, etc. Hugh2414 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done Alcuin 15:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Care and feeding", etc.
I have read Alcuin's comments that his additions "should be tweaked for quality, not removed". The process of cleaning up said additions IMO would be a wasted effort, considering the lack of style matching, spelling and grammar mistakes ("companys", "lessend"), irrelevant data ("Hal Leonard (probably the biggest) or Alfred"), POV and whimsy "care and feeding of songs", "finds homes for songs", "come to life on record", etc.), overlong phrasing ("before the singer/songwriter or band who writes their own songs came to be in the 1960s"), and so on. The additions take away from what is a brief but succinct article, which is better off without them. And replacing the specific word "agent" with... "someone"?! Unprofessional. Zephyrad 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, those additions were a mess. I just don't like to see lengthy edits being reverted completely.  The idealist in me likes to think that there may be something salvageable in any good-faith edit, no matter how atrocious.  Too bad I'm too lazy to try to find it.  :) --Alcuin 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

untitled, and unsigned
The so-called irrelevant data - imo - is not at all - and is much better than inaccurate data - makes me very nervous about what I read on other subjects being knowledgeable about this one. I'll use spell check in the future.

Also, a couple word about print and mentioning the 2 biggest print companies is irrelevant (Alfred recently bought Warner Bros. Publications)? Short and concise is on thing - but short and wrong...?

And lots more to be done - it will flow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.8.109 (talk • contribs)

Re: Revert
This article is about the job of a music publisher – which would be considered a kind of agent, in the general sense of the term (regardless of how a given publisher may see himself). The material inserted (then removed, then reinserted) tends to be superfluous (as explained above here, and admitted to by their editor) or irrelevant to the article's context. (What does Warner Brothers's purchase of Alfred have to do with the day-to-day work of a music publisher?)

The "wrong info" mentioned was not detailed. There also appears to have been a personal attack made ("obviously not familiar with the field", "horrible changes", etc.), and both previous editors demonstrate a lack of writing skill, discretion, and knowledge of Wikipedia norms and expectations (such as the recent comments inserted at the top of this page, instead of chronologically, toward the bottom). Meanwhile an entire paragraph dealing with unscrupulous publishers ("songsharks") was deleted with no explanation, which makes me question this particular editor's motives and scruples in doing so. "It will flow"? It flowed already; the recent inserts and reinserts amounted to a logjam, IMO. Zephyrad 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision
Music publishers do not collect song royalties; this is the job of performing rights societies (such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, PROCAN, and others). They also do not protect against copyright infringements; that is the job of copyright laws and the courts. Part of the publisher's job is to see to it that songwriters (or their designees) receive their royalties once collected, and to oversee and pursue cases of infringement. Zephyrad 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're confusing the different kinds of royalties. ASCAP and BMI collect performance royalties. Publishing companies collect mechanical royalties directly (as well as synchronization royalties, work for hire fees, etc.).


 * And obviously publishing companies fight against copyright infringement. Their whole business is based on their intellectual property! Owning songs is what they do. CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Move BACK to original entry!
This article was moved with no discussion, and for no good reason, while the listed reason completely ignores the term "music print publisher", which was edited out of the text. I propose the new disambiguation article be deleted, to allow this entry to be moved back, while something should be done about establishing the term being reached for and missed. Zephyrad 12:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  Do not move back. Whilst many of those interested in popular music will think of 'music publisher' in terms of this article ('Music publisher (popular music}') most of those interested in 'classical' or 'serious' music  (whatever you wish to call it) will think of 'music publisher' in terms of sheet music publishing. The disambiguation page Music publisher is therefore an appropriate way to deal with this, even-handed to both 'sides'. The title of the present article fits its content. The original title ('Music publisher') is not appropriate because the article contains no coverage of the very different world of sheet music publishing.


 * As regards the term 'music print publisher'; this term does not appear to exist in common use. A search for this term in Google reveals that it is only used in Wikipedia articles. It is clearly a neologism, (See avoid neologisms), and was edited out accordingly. The presence, or absence, of this phrase has however nothing to do with renaming of the article. --Smerus 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Smerus' move here- "music print publisher" is indeed a neologism - therefore Category:Music print publishers should be merged to Category:Publishers of sheet music with the former being deleted entirely. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not a "neologism"; it is the standard term taught in college classes about the music business, and also in Writers Digest and other publications. One quick glance at Google is hardly "research". Zephyrad 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you are right it isn't a neologism but most of the matches on google seem to refer to "Hal Leonard" music whereas "publisher of sheet music" has 8380 hits. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge articles under Music publishing or Music publisher. I don't see why we have to split the two articles. It seems obvious to me that the publishing of music has changed over time and that therefore various types of publishing coexists. I think it is silly to distinguish between classical or popular. Matthias Röder 09:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoorah! ...although, there would be no need of a merger had the original article been left alone, or subjected to discussion before a wholly reactionary move was made without one. Zephyrad 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment it appears that the article History of music publishing began as a transcription of a speech made by Nicholas Firth, Chairman and CEO of BMG Music Publishing - the unaltered version is here. Perhaps we should as Matthias Röder suggests, merge these two articles? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

suggestion for edit
I suggest the link to Music Business Solutions is removed from the bottom. It does not really add to the article and can appear more like an advert for the company than as an example of a publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.17 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Idea for Tracking Publishing
This is an idea for the future. You know how everytime a song is played anywhere the writer of the song is supposed to get money. Well there are certain agents or whatever that go out into the world and find out exactly how many times songs have been played in a radio station or big chain restaurant etc. Well, this idea I recieved, has to do with tracking the songs, individually. For example, every single song has it's own combination of frequencies. No to songs have the same combination otherwise it would be the exact same song. So every song has it's own frequency combination, mostly it differentiates within the first 10 second of the song, even if two songs (and there are billions of songs out there) start the same, there's always slight nuances in the recording or in the post production and then not to mention in the humanization. So each song can be track individually according to its frequency combination. And these sound frequencies would be tracked via satelite or radio or digital cellular or psychic or whatever. Then it could be uploaded into a database and tracked each hour all around the world etc. Hopefully this helped elicit the imagination of someone outthere. --DreHectik 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

songshark
It seems to me that a "song shark" is not a topic that this article needs to cover, since a song shark isn't a really music publisher. They don't collect and distribute royalties, they don't promote songs, etc. (If they did these things, they wouldn't be sharks, would they?) CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. New songwriters should be made aware of the difference between the two; lay people won't be hurt by knowing the difference. Songsharks pose as publishers. ("Isn't a really"?) Zephyrad (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)