Music industry organisations provide perspectives on the economics of streaming debate
Following the announcements earlier this week about the economics of streaming work being coordinated by the UK government, CMU has been speaking to representatives from some of the organisations that have been involved in those projects. Unsurprisingly, while everyone sees positives in that work, there are disagreements about what has been achieved so far and what should happen next.

The government instigated a number of projects in response to the inquiry into streaming undertaken by the Digital, Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee in the UK Parliament. MPs on that committee raised various issues with the way streaming currently works, especially from a music-maker perspective, and called for a "complete reset" of the digital music businesses.

There were three main government-led projects, overseen by the Intellectual Property Office, respectively putting the focus on data, transparency and music-maker remuneration.

Expert working groups were convened to discuss the issues around data and transparency, and to identify and discuss possible solutions. Meanwhile research was commissioned to consider copyright reforms that had been proposed by the select committee to address music-maker remuneration issues.

To help coordinate all of that a 'music industry contact group' was created mainly made up of the organisations that represent each stakeholder group within the music rights industry. So that includes organisations representing artists, musicians, songwriters, producers, managers, labels, publishers and the streaming services.

Those organisations have canvassed their respective members on the various issues that were raised by the select committee, and have fed back what they learned. They also nominated experts for the two working groups and have led the negotiations on the codes of practice on data and transparency that came out of those specific projects.

The big two announcements this week in relation to all this were that the code of practice around music metadata has now been agreed and signed, and that the government has agreed to convene another working group focused on music-maker remuneration.

On the metadata code, all the trade organisations we spoke to agree this is an important and positive step.

Currently when recordings are delivered to streaming services, it's common for no data to be provided about the producers and session musicians who worked on the track. Songwriter names are now often included, but not always with complete accuracy. And the code that identifies the specific song contained in the recording - the ISWC - is rarely supplied.

This missing data means many music-makers go uncredited. Meanwhile on the songs side it can delay or even stop payment being made to the songwriter.

The metadata code sees everyone involved in the making, release, distribution and streaming of recorded music committing to raise their game when it comes to gathering and providing data. And pretty much everyone agrees that it is a step in the right direction. And everyone plans to provide training and support to their members to help them do the game raising.

In some cases that work is already underway. The Ivor's Academy co-launched the Credits Due campaign in 2021 to educate the music community about the key categories of music metadata. And beyond education, the Music Publishers Association stresses that some of the work to deliver the code, such as ensuring ISWCs are issued sooner, is already underway.

Though some of the music-maker organisations stress that the metadata code is very much a starting point. For starters, key performance indicators to assess the extent to which data provision improves are still to be agreed, though that task is next on the agenda for the IPO.

But even once the KPIs are in place, more changes will be required in the future to fix all the problems, especially around songwriter payments.

The Music Managers Forum points to the 'Song Royalties Manifesto' it published last year which set out a much more ambitious and extensive plan. Though, the MMF does add, the first step towards achieving that grander plan involves the sorts of things set out in the code. So it is definitely a good first step.

It's no secret that music-maker remuneration is the most divisive of the three areas of focus identified by the IPO. And in some parts of the industry, the mere convening of a working group to discuss that topic is seen as controversial.

For the music-maker organisations, remuneration is by far the biggest issue, even though the specific grievances and challenges are different for artists, songwriters and session musicians, and for artists releasing music today and those still earning from records releases years or decades ago.

The big question now is what the scope of the remuneration working group should be, and there are differences of opinion there too. Though - labels and publishers in particular - say that all and any discussions must be "evidence based".

That's because the labels and publishers aren't convinced that every grievance raised by the music-makers around remuneration is justified. Or, at least, those grievances aren't the result of the deals done between artists and labels, and songwriters and publishers.

And in some cases they're right. Sometimes the issues are caused by the steaming services. Or the fact that an artist's music doesn't get that many streams, given success in streaming comes from millions rather than thousands of plays.

But, the music-maker groups would argue, while some grievances don't stand up to scrutiny, plenty do. And the former should not be used to distract from the latter.

So, while there were some key developments in the economics of streaming work this week, there is plenty more to be done. And the trickiest conversations are still to be had.

You can read our interviews with the bosses of the Musicians' Union, BPI, Music Managers Forum and Music Publishers Association in today's CMU Daily. Tomorrow we hear from the Ivor's Academy, the Association Of Independent Music, the Featured Artists Coalition, and ERA, which speaks for the streaming services.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

NAOMI POHL, GENERAL SECRETARY, MUSICIANS' UNION
The Musicians' Union is the UK's trade union for musicians, and represents a wide-range of music-makers, including speaking for session musicians.

What do you think have been the most important aspects of the IPO led projects that were instigated after the select committee inquiry?
I think the process as a whole is beginning to shed some light on some issues that the industry has failed to address since music streaming took off and became the biggest source of revenue for record labels.

Personally I think the biggest issue is music maker remuneration. The vast majority of artists aren't getting a fair deal, session musicians receive no streaming royalties, and songwriters' money isn't always reaching them because of data issues.

While we've made some progress on the last point, at least in principle, we have made no progress on remuneration overall which is why I am delighted we finally have a work-stream dedicated to that.

What do you think should be the priorities of the music-maker remuneration working group that is now being convened?
Essentially, we need to have a negotiation and achieve a better deal for signed artists as well as session musicians. We need to ensure fair pay for all music makers, regardless of when they signed contracts.

This isn't just about music makers recording and releasing music now, it is about a deal that generates fair payments for those performers and creators whose works make up the vast catalogue of music that has been exploited on streaming services since they began.

The IPO has already undertaken research on the three copyright reforms proposed by the select committee - ie reversion rights, contract adjustment rights and performer ER. What is your current position on those proposals?
We are in favour of Performer ER or an equivalent system that guarantees royalties for all music makers on streamed music.

Any solution like that must be reciprocal with other territories because this is an international problem and we are fighting for a fair deal for all music makers. We receive streaming royalties from Spain, for example, so we need to collect royalties for their artists' music streamed here too.

The research on reversion rights and contract adjustment is useful but we need to put these into action by agreement with the industry or in legislation. We can't afford to fall behind other countries on this and at the moment we are.

There has been a lot of discussion of late about reforming the way streaming monies are allocated to individual tracks and catalogues. What are your thoughts on those discussions?
Well Universal Music are now talking about an artist-centric model of streaming revenue allocation.

They haven't said what they mean by that exactly but surely an artist centric model would involve all artists actually being paid and not losing the majority of their income to platforms, labels and in the payment pipeline. And surely it would mean transparency around how money is allocated to tracks and why.

The data work-stream and new code should help because royalties should find their way to the right creators and performers more reliably. But again, the elephant in the room here has been that the labels need to pay over more streaming revenue to musicians. That's the nut we have to crack in order for this process to be of any meaningful use.

How do you think the undertakings in the metadata code will impact on the way streaming services work and music-makers get paid?
Data has been a problem in the music industry for as long as royalties have existed. Accurate data will mean more money in music maker pockets and less getting lost in the system or mis-allocated. This can only be a good thing and is very welcome. But we also need to be paid more; the metadata issue isn't the only issue.

How can your members help ensure the metadata code has the maximum impact? What measures would you encourage them to implement?
Everyone has to play their part in ensuring data is recorded accurately. We've always wanted to labels to take more responsibility and hopefully that will happen as a result of this new code. We will hold them to account. Our members need to ensure their records are up to date with PPL and PRS.

How can other stakeholders in the music community ensure that the metadata code has the maximum impact? What measures would you encourage them to implement?
It is a huge gripe for me that session musicians names aren't registered when tracks are logged at PPL. This is down to the label and often the producer. This needs to change. There's no excuse for patchy data on new tracks. The songwriters have also been hugely let down in the past and recordings often haven't been linked to songs. Every person or company in the data chain needs to play their part.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

SOPHIE JONES, CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER + INTERIM CEO, BPI
BPI is the trade body for the UK record industry, speaking for the major record companies as well as many independent record labels.

What do you think have been the most important aspects of the IPO led projects that were instigated after the select committee inquiry?
The IPO-led process has provided an opportunity for stakeholders to interrogate the concerns raised during the Select Committee process and create an independent evidence base to inform further discussions.

Excellent progress has been made on metadata in terms of codifying good practice that can be actioned now by everyone in the value chain. The group has also devised a programme of ongoing work to drive further improvements over the next two years. This promises to make payments to songwriters and the DIY market faster and more accurate.

We are also working with the IPO to finalise a code of practice on transparency, an industry first, and a great collaborative effort from all participants. The code will set a common standard for transparent communication across the music supply chain, while safeguarding privacy, confidentiality and competition.

The BPI and our label members are pleased to have played an important role in enabling progress to date.

What do you think should be the priorities of the music-maker remuneration working group that is now being convened?
To…

• Ensure any discussion is evidence-based from the outset, making use of the research that the IPO, the CMA and independent analysts have collected over the last three years and that this process does not revive subjective and flawed arguments about the market made during this time.

• Consider the interests of all artists, including in particular the next generation of talent, and to acknowledge the steps the industry has already taken in relation to legacy artists.

• Discuss ways to grow artist/wider industry earnings by addressing problems in the market such as over-supply of the streaming market; piracy; stream manipulation; AI clones and deep-fakes; failure of subscription prices to keep up with inflation; and the low value of return from short-form platforms.

• There should also be scope to look at ways to boost the many non-streaming earnings that artists can generate, such as from live and touring, merchandising, sync, brand partnerships, and the many other diversified ways in which artists can support their careers.

• Agree steps to grow the industry through supporting exports and promoting investment – with this being the only way for artists to earn more without negatively impacting investment in new talent and to maintain the UK's strong position globally.

• Shape a common approach to safeguarding human artistry in the era of artificial intelligence – this being the most urgent and pressing issue facing creator remuneration today.

The IPO has already undertaken research on the three copyright reforms proposed by the select committee - ie reversion rights, contract adjustment rights and performer ER. What is your current position on those proposals?
Whilst well-intentioned, the suggestions made by the Select Committee did not consider the unintended consequences of certain proposals. These are fraught with fundamental problems and complexities and actually risk harming the artist community they seek to benefit and make the UK a less appealing place to invest in music. The only winners would be collecting societies and litigation lawyers.

Economic modelling has shown that all versions of ER lead to a decline in earnings for artists either in the short term or in the medium to longer term through reduced investment. Rights reversion and contract adjustment would: undermine legal certainty and the ability to invest in new music and emerging talent; reduce the choice of deal types currently available to artists; and put downward pressure on upfront advances. It risks seriously undermining the prospects for a successful UK music industry.

There has been a lot of discussion of late about reforming the way streaming monies are allocated to individual tracks and catalogues. How can the ongoing economics of streaming work in the UK inform and influence that conversation?
It probably needs to work the other way round – in other words, evidence emerging from the detailed studies, analysis and trials happening already across the industry, often in dialogue with streaming services, should inform and influence discussions in the ongoing government-led process.

How do you think the undertakings in the metadata code will impact on the way streaming services work and music-makers get paid?
The code sets a clear expectation of good practice, with specific obligations on specific players in the value chain. We hope to see some immediate improvements as a result in terms of the speed and accuracy of songwriter payments.

Further progress should come over the next two years through exploring better ways to link ISWCs to ISRCs coupled with raising awareness among creators of the importance of agreeing creative contributions and splits and inputting their data as early as possible.

How can your members help ensure the metadata code has the maximum impact? What measures would you encourage them to implement?
We are encouraging all of our members to adhere to the code and to field the right people to shape the ongoing discussions over the next two years.

We will be hosting a training session for our independent members to talk them through the code further and support them further as they take this forward.

How can other stakeholders in the music community ensure that the metadata code has the maximum impact? What measures would you encourage them to implement?
Similarly to above, we would encourage everyone to get behind the code and the ongoing work programme. A lot of time and effort has been spent to bring something together that has cross-industry input, it would be a shame to see this not be taken forward in the way it has been intended.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

ANNABELLA COLDRICK, CEO, MMF
The MMF is the UK trade body for music managers, which includes people managing artists, songwriters and producers.

What do you think have been the most important aspects of the IPO led projects that were instigated after the select committee inquiry?
All three areas of work are important - transparency, data and remuneration - but the ultimate focus has to be on the fair remuneration of artists and other music-makers.

It's a long journey but we've finally got to the government agreeing to convene a working group on remuneration, which sounds really boring but which is actually a landmark move. This is the UK government overseeing an industry discussion around fair pay to try to reach an agreement.

For context, I actually think that the IPO research report on contract adjustment and rights reversion is really fascinating - mostly because it puts the conversations we've been having in the UK into perspective and highlights how so many countries around the world have already attempted to deal with the tricky questions around the imbalance of negotiating power between creators, music makers and artists and the big companies that they're signed to.

The report shows beyond doubt that the measures being called for by the creator groups in the UK are not unreasonable. These issues are being looked at everywhere, and they're being addressed by different countries in different ways. Ultimately, it also demonstrates not only that legislation can be used effectively to help address dysfunctions in the streaming market, but also - for instance, in France - that it is possible to have industry-wide agreements.

What do you think should be the priorities of the music-maker remuneration working group that is now being convened?
The priority is having a full and open discussion about addressing the imbalance for those artists who are contributing to the bulk of music streaming's value through their catalogue, while being paid outdated royalty rates.

Even those artists currently receiving a label royalty of 15% - well above the 20th Century rates - are still being paid significantly below the 'modern' average of 26% that the labels confirmed to the select committee. That situation urgently needs to be resolved, especially at this current moment when label profits are increasing substantially.

It's also vital that we think about the future, and what comes after streaming. We all know that new forms of exploitation, like AI, are coming down the track, and it's really important that the mechanisms are in place to adjust and revise contracts around future technological change.

For instance, in Germany, it used to be that any form of new exploitation was not allowed to be included or bolted on to existing contracts. In 2008, that was replaced with new measures where the exploitation of 'unknown types of use' have to be agreed in writing in advance, with creators being notified three months ahead of those uses being exploited and given the opportunity to revoke those rights. That's really fascinating, and potentially allows creators and music makers to better realise the value of their rights when new technologies emerge.

It's crucial we can future-proof any outcomes from the working group, and there's a real opportunity here for the music industry to strike an agreement that aligns all of our interests and shares fairly in the wealth. If you can do a great deal for a new artist based on 26% of revenue, then why can't you also adjust rates for the catalogue that's driving most of the value?

The IPO has already undertaken research on the three copyright reforms proposed by the select committee - ie reversion rights, contract adjustment rights and performer ER. What is your current position on those proposals?
As we outlined in the white paper that the MMF published with the FAC back in 2021, we feel that all three of these proposals are important and should remain on the table.

Reversion is probably the reform we feel strongest about which could ensure a modern competitive market and future proof any deals - such as the 35 year rule in the US. Fascinatingly we used to have rights reversion in the UK until the 1950s.

There remains questions about how it could be implemented retrospectively, and in some countries reversion often really acts as a kind of contract adjustment. In the US, for instance, many artists use this as an opportunity to enter into updated deals and reevaluate the terms on which they're paid.

Ideally we'd like to see some kind of contract adjustment with collective bargaining to ensure fair baseline terms as mentioned in the EU copyright directive. And in the absence of any other solutions we think that ER could provide a mechanism to ensure that every music maker who contributed to a recording gets paid something - without it going against recoupment. So that should also remain on the table.

Again, it's really worth taking the time to read the research report, and take confidence in the fact that many other countries, including the US and across the EU, have recognised the need to introduce interventions in order to make the recorded market function better. As I say, even the UK had a reversion right prior to 1956! These are not alien concepts, they are commonplace in much of the rest of the world!

There has been a lot of discussion of late about reforming the way streaming monies are allocated to individual tracks and catalogues. What are your thoughts on those discussions?
The MMF has been supportive of the principle of user-centric model for many years on the principle that what the fan pays should go to the artists the fan actually listens to, not a bigger pot.

We think that fraud is a huge concern, and we are also really intrigued by the CMA's findings that there's already a major imbalance with how revenue is allocated to different rights holders. That issue needs to be discussed in a lot more detail.

Also, while it's great that major labels are now committed to changing how revenue is distributed and are willing to explore new models, it's vital that all music-makers and their representatives are included in those conversations.

This is not the time for unilateral solutions. We need proper discussions about how to tackle fraud or the challenges of 120,000 tracks being uploaded to DSPs every day. Those discussions can't just be led by the major rights holders.

How do you think the undertakings in the metadata code will impact on the way streaming services work and music-makers get paid?
In the short term, they won't. In our Song Royalties Manifesto, the MMF put forward the long-term proposal that song metadata and publishing ownership needs to become a mandatory part of uploading music.

By doing that in the longer term you could potentially flip the system, and allow streaming services to pay the publishers and collecting societies on a monthly basis, rather than the cumbersome matching process we're stuck with, because they would know who owns what work.

That's still our ultimate goal, however these initial undertakings are a really important first step along that road. The MMF were once called mad for suggesting that recordings should only be released when the songwriter data was embedded, but we're now seeing organisations like CISAC calling for the same thing - so it feels that this idea has traction and we're now moving down that road to progress.

The management community is definitely up for taking their share of responsibility in getting this to happen and we feel that everyone should pull together to establish some proper tangible change.

How can your members help ensure the metadata code has the maximum impact? What measures would you encourage them to implement?
The MMF has been consulting really actively with our members all the way through this process.

We've held separate sessions with producer and songwriter managers, as well as with artist managers, and we need to ensure that the 'speed up' process that CISAC is promising to make the ISWC codes easily available actually happens, and that labels proactively ask managers to provide this information so that they can work with publishers and societies to get the codes issued.

Our members will do everything they can to make sure the code has the maximum impact, providing everyone else in the system is doing what they can to support change and speed things up.

How can other stakeholders in the music community ensure that the metadata code has the maximum impact? What measures would you encourage them to implement?
We need KPIs - so key performance indicators - to measure and incentivise progress. We need to be able to ensure that these measures, when implemented, are actually making a difference.

Everyone has signed this code on trust, without having those KPIs in place, but it's absolutely critical that we are able to know how many recordings are being uploaded with the full and accurate song data attached, and we're able to measure the impact. We also need to measure what impact that has on the matching process, and then what that does to the size of the black box and the volume of unmatched repertoire.

It's absolutely key that we get these KPI's established in the next six months, so we're not just making changes without the knowledge or understanding of their impact. For that to happen, we need the streaming services, the publishers and the collection societies to agree to share this headline information.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

PAUL CLEMENTS, CEO, MUSIC PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
The MPA is the trade body for the UK music publishing sector, speaking for both the major music publishers as well as the big network of indie publishers. It also operates the UK's mechanical rights collecting society MCPS.

What do you think have been the most important aspects of the IPO led projects that were instigated after the select committee inquiry?
It has been impressive to see the IPO process draw together representatives from all of the key industry stakeholders to discuss, pool resources and explore evidence related to important issues around metadata.

A lot of time and care has been invested in the expert metadata working group to deliver the goals that these groups have been tasked with achieving. The group will continue to its next stage of necessary work, relationships will further strengthen as a result, making challenges easier to overcome.

All the while our MPA members have contributed their expertise positively and proactively to these important developments. It is ever important for these initiatives to remain focused on evidence-based policy making.

What do you think should be the priorities of the music-maker remuneration working group that is now being convened?
Music is undervalued as a proposition. Whilst there have been some recent subscription price increases in the market, the bottom line is that the consumer proposition for subscription has dramatically improved whilst the average revenue per user has dramatically declined in real terms.

Combined with the fact that revenue is being distributed between a much bigger number of songs and recordings, the industry's challenges with securing fair compensation are magnified and remuneration to the ever-increasing number of music makers is under constant and increasing pressure.

To mitigate against these fundamental underlying factors it would be useful to prioritise the following in discussions:

Immediate attention needs to be paid to the piracy which platforms are seemingly turning a blind eye to while making available and distributing a significant number of unlicensed apps through their app stores.

Further, while music provides the fuel to so many platforms' consumer market engines and businesses, the platforms choose to narrowly define which revenue streams the music industry are able to participate in, depriving music-makers of the value they should be rightfully participating in for their invaluable contributions.

The IPO has already undertaken research on the three copyright reforms proposed by the select committee - ie reversion rights, contract adjustment rights and performer ER. What is your current position on those proposals?
We do not believe that there are any IPO proposals following their research initiatives and evidence gathering exercises across these areas.

This outcome is welcomed, not least because our publishing sector operates in a dynamic and highly competitive environment, one which serves to deliver many varied contractual arrangements - with songwriters and composers - and as such we have never subscribed to the notion that it may be in the best interests of songwriters, composers or our publisher members to erode the contractual certainty necessary for investment and see these freely negotiated, agile and often bespoke contractual arrangements made subject to regulatory intervention.

Specifically on performer ER, the MPA doesn't represent performers and it is not a matter that should impact our publisher members and their songwriter and composer clients, however we would become extremely concerned if any introduction of ER were to put downward pressure on our members' creator clients' income. The latter must be avoided.

There has been a lot of discussion of late about reforming the way streaming monies are allocated to individual tracks and catalogues. How can the ongoing economics of streaming work in the UK inform and influence that conversation?
There may be merit in exploring this, and rights owners have been considering it, but to the extent possible, we should progress this thinking outside these work streams.

To date we have seen no substantial proof that alternative models deliver better results for songwriters and there is a risk of a substantial cost burden, alongside a loss of transparency and efficiency in some of the concepts thus far shared.

Therefore, we will be particularly focused on ensuring that we see evidence materialise which guarantees improved outcomes associated with any 'great' reform idea, no matter where that idea comes from.

How do you think the undertakings in the metadata code will impact on the way streaming services work and music-makers get paid?
Firstly, the management of this IPO workstream ought to be applauded, as should the contributors to this important output, including our publisher member experts and PRS. Most people reading this will have very little idea how much effort and thinking has gone into getting the work to this stage.

Secondly, we have an agreed roadmap for next steps, impacts will therefore not be immediate, but some may be surprised to read that some of the tools which were agreed would make a positive difference have already been developed and are being tested within a subset of the metadata group.

It is very pleasing to see the industry so motivated to turn their shared ideas into realities. When all of the outputs of this workstream are delivered we should witness a significant shift in the provision and sharing of song related metadata, which in turn will aid the speed of processing and accuracy of onward distributions to rights holders and creators.

How can your members help ensure the metadata code has the maximum impact? What measures would you encourage them to implement?
As previously mentioned, the first thing our members will be doing is further contributing to delivering upon the metadata code's objectives.

Signing a code does not deliver the outcome and much of the improvements we hope to see relies heavily on other stakeholders in the value chain playing their role and taking the importance of securing, associating and supplying critical metadata with each recording at the point that recordings enter the value chain.

Further hard work is required to deliver the end goals and more education on the importance of providing song metadata as early in the production process as possible will be paramount.

Our experts within the metadata working group are turning their attention to establishing reliable measurement KPIs which will help shine a light on how the changes are making a difference and to keep tabs on adoption and application.

How can other stakeholders in the music community ensure that the metadata code has the maximum impact? What measures would you encourage them to implement?
From an artist or their manager in a studio, all the way through to the performing rights societies' global umbrella trade body CISAC - eg ISWC early assignment etc - we will need to harness the IPO's metadata working group's collaborative spirit and willingness to work with societies, publishers, labels, streaming platforms and creator trade body representatives in order to assure maximum positive impact. Open dialogue and a willingness to help at all levels should ensure we deliver upon our objectives.

As already mentioned, projects aren't a pipe dream, some are already being developed and are in testing, it will be up to the entire trade body and society network to continue to inform, educate and support all parties involved to adopt the practices and standards as set out in the code. We are very encouraged by everything we have heard and thus far seen in this regard.

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

BBC outlines Glastonbury plans
The BBC has announced more details about its Glastonbury coverage for this year which, it says, will include "over 40 hours of coverage across our TV channels to our audiences, as well as over 85 hours of live radio broadcasts, in addition to content on BBC Sounds".

In terms of what is happening on the BBC Sounds app, well "new podcasts, collections and playlists will be available", we are told.

Meanwhile "BBC iPlayer will present an expanded, twelve-day celebration of the festival, featuring over 40 hours of coverage … in addition to numerous streams and classic Glastonbury performances".

Also in the iPlayer, the BBC adds, "for the first time, we will be streaming Pyramid Stage performances live in British Sign Language, making our coverage more accessible than ever before".

Commenting on all this, Glastonbury's Emily Eavis says: "We've worked in partnership with the BBC since 1997 and they've become an incredibly valuable part of what we do at Glastonbury".

"I think we've created something really special together", she adds, "and we're delighted that they're continuing to evolve their coverage with additions such as streaming Pyramid Stage performances live in British Sign Language. We're looking forward to welcoming them to the farm [this month] and here's to many more Glastonburys together".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

MU launches free membership scheme for refugee musicians
The Musicians' Union has launched a new scheme offering a year's free membership to refugee musicians living in the UK.

Delivered in partnership with Counterpoints Arts, the scheme aims to help refugees build their music careers within the UK industry.

"This means musicians escaping famine, conflict and persecution will have full access to the MU's advice and services", the union explains, "including contract advice, legal advice and insurance cover relating to their work as musicians".

Says MU General Secretary Naomi Pohl: "I am proud to lead a trade union that welcomes refugee musicians and where the suggestion of a free membership offer came directly from our members. This initiative is a testament to our commitment to welcoming refugees into our family of musicians".

"The UK's musical landscape is richer because of wide-ranging musical influences from across the world", she goes on, "and we're here to provide support and guidance to all musicians who need us. Solidarity and inclusion are about embracing everyone. We want refugee musicians to flourish, avoid bad deals and exploitation, and have confidence that - should they need help - we'll be right by their side".

Counterpoints Arts Director Almir Koldzic adds: "We're delighted to be collaborating with the MU on their offer of free membership for refugees who are professional musicians. Access to information, contacts and support is so important for people who are seeking sanctuary, and with the MU's support many more musicians will now be able to share their work with the public".

"This initiative is also a statement of solidarity from the MU and the wide community of musicians they represent, and a strong commitment to a spirit of welcome and inclusivity".

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN

APPOINTMENTS

Primary Wave Music has appointed David Loiterton as President, Indo-Pacific. He has been working with the music rights firm since 2018. Says Primary Wave CEO Larry Mestel: "David is an exceptional leader. He is unique for a modern-day music executive possessing both business and creative skills. We are looking forward to creating a powerful and creatively influential Primary Wave in Asia under David's leadership".

Lauren Kreisler has been promoted to become the first Director Of Brand & Digital for the UK's Official Charts Company. She takes on the expanded role, we are told, "as the company prepares to launch a newly refreshed brand identity and consumer-facing digital platform in the coming weeks". Says CEO Martin Talbot: "Lauren lives and breathes the Official Charts brand like no-one else and is a priceless asset to the charts. Her next big project is our brand refresh and website reimagining, which is currently being prepared for launch and will bear fruit next month".

MNRK Music Group has elevated Brandon Squar to General Manager and Ebrahim 'Abe' Rasheed to SVP, Urban. Says COO Sean Stevenson: "Brandon and Abe have demonstrated their commitment, passion and drive for our artists and, in these new roles, they'll continue to lead and nurture our first-rate talent, cementing MNRK as a destination for music talent and as a leading indie".

--------------------------------------------------

DIGITAL

Apple Music has launched its new classical music specific app for Android users, it having become available on iOS back in March. Anyone with an Apple Music subscription can use the app which is designed to make it easier to navigate and explore music from the classical genre.

The Music & Tech Springboard Programme from UK record industry trade group BPI, which connects music-tech start-ups with the music industry, has announced a partnership with MusicTech Japan. The new partnership, the BPI says, will "enable the Music & Tech Springboard Programme to expand its scope by now also working with cutting-edge Japanese music start-ups in the UK. The new relationship will also pave the way for future collaborations across Japan for the BPI's existing Music Tech innovation members".

--------------------------------------------------

RELEASES

Helena Deland has shared new acoustic single 'Spring Bug'. She says: "Spring sun and spring rain make past selves sprout out of the ground. The question of whether or not to leave this town becomes the background on which they wreak havoc. But it's like Joan Didion says, 'we are well-advised to keep on nodding terms with the people we used to be, whether we find them attractive company or not. Otherwise they turn up unannounced and surprise us, come hammering on the mind's door at 4am on a bad night and demand to know who deserted them, who betrayed them, who is going to make amends'. 'Spring Bug' is the wave of a hand trying to shoo off a noisy flying creature, and the creature is me!"

Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds have released new song 'Open The Door, See What You Find' ahead of the arrival of new album 'Council Skies' tomorrow. Says the man himself: "Lyrically, the premise is that, at a certain point in your life you look in a mirror and you see all you've ever been and all you're ever going to be. It's about being happy with that. Being happy with where you are in life, with who you are, and where you're going. Life is good!"

BACK TO THE TOP OF THE BULLETIN