This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Move to music publishing? I think so - compare Publishing, Editing, etc. Hugh2414 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Move to music publishing? I think so - compare Publishing, Editing, etc. Hugh2414 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)