·         Copyright musical compositions and songs

·         Secure recording rights of songs

·         Secure performance rights to broadcasting television and radio

·         Arrange for the manufacturing of sheet music

·         Secure song usage rights for advertising

·         Monitor Copyright infringement and facilitate applicable lawsuits

·         Register songs with ASCAP and BMI

·         Inform clients of changes in the industry regarding laws and standards

·         Promote new songs and compositions in the industry

·         Negotiate fees for licensing

·         Discovering new usages for licensing of song material

·         Explore international options for marketing of music

·         Promote positive legislation on behalf of the artist’s interests

·         Keep track of trends in all broadcast media so as to make suggestions for future songs

As can be seen by this above list, the music publisher plays a key role in the success of any songwriter or composer in the music business. If you are looking to break into the field, sometimes it’s not the best thing to simply find an agent and wait for a job opportunity. The music publisher, though similar to the role of an agent, is able to find opportunities that the average agent can not as they are involved with licensing.

Licensing of song usage is an incredible money earner as you can earn cash each time your song is played at sporting events, on the radio, on television and in movies. While some of these deals may not seem incredibly lucrative, think about how some people are able to write one hit song then live off of the licensing royalties for the rest of their lives.

Click here for tips on How to Play Blues Piano

Image via Wikipedia

• If you are 5’9” tall and weigh 128 lbs or less and have a BMI under 18.5, you are underweight. 
• If you are 5’9” tall and weigh 125-168 lbs and have a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9, you are at a healthy weight. 
• If you are 5’9” tall and weigh 169-202 lbs and have a BMI of 25-29.9, you are considered overweight. 
• If you are 5’9” tall and weigh 203 lbs or more and have a BMI above 30, you qualify for being officially obese.    

But if you happen to be a woman, Caucasian and overweight, you will need to watch out even more!  Overweight men can be penalized up to 2.6% of the typical salary that slimmer men make, but for overweight white women  that penalty can go all the way to 6.2%  . Its fine and dandy to rationalize that obesity causes higher healthcare costs and thus higher insurance payments made by employers, but do we really know that the increased cost of healthcare for obesity is caused more by white, overweight women than any other people with a weight problem?

 A 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics report showed an increasing trend toward penalizing white, overweight women more than any other group. David Lempert, the author of the study, states that previous studies have shown white women to be the only race-gender group whose weight significantly impacts their salaries, and this most recent study only showed this bias increasing.  Heavier workers have been shown to receive an average of $1.25 less than slimmer co-workers doing the same job.  This amounts to an estimated $100,000 less in gross salary over a 40 year career!  Even slightly heavy women make 6% less in wages than other, thinner women.  Very heavy women make 24% less!  Such a penalty only affects men at the very highest weight levels.    

The Council on Size and Weight Discrimination (CSWD) on their website, provides the council’s position on weight discrimination in detail: Some of it follows:

Prospective employers refuse to hire large size people, especially in jobs where employees do physical work, or jobs where employees interact with the public.

CSWD position: employers can insist that their public representatives be well groomed, appropriately dressed, personable, and physically capable of doing the job well. But any criterion which excludes an entire group of people–African Americans, people with disabilities, or larger-than-average people–is unacceptable.

Large people are subject to harassment about their weight by their employers, are kept in jobs beneath their abilities, and are often demoted or fired because of stated or unstated weight prejudice.

CSWD position: the only valid criterion for job evaluation, raises, promotions, disciplinary action, demotion, or firing is job performance. If an employer thinks an employee’s size hinders their ability to do the job, it is incumbent on the employer to discuss this with the employee and make a determination, not to make a judgment about the person’s ability based on their size.

Physicians and other health care professionals often advise fat patients to lose weight no matter what their medical condition, whereas a thin person with the same condition would be given medicine or other medical treatment. Hospitals and other health care facilities and equipment (such as cat scans and MRIs) are often inaccessible to large people.

Large people are systematically denied health insurance and life insurance, or they are forced to pay higher premiums than those of average weight.

CSWD position: a person’s size does not determine their health or the healthfulness of their lifestyle.

Applicants are often turned down by educational institutions because of their size. In a famous discrimination case which went to the Supreme Court, a college made a nursing student sign a contract promising to lose weight or be expelled (the Court invalidated the contract).

The Council on Size and Weight Discrimination makes the following suggestions for dealing with instances of weight discrimination:

Start a file. Gather together all of your employment records, especially your

job evaluations. If the employer claims that your weight prevents you from

doing the job, you need to show that you have been performing all the

required duties.

Take notes. If a colleague, supervisor, or employer speaks to you about your

job performance, or about your weight or appearance, write down the date,

time, names of people present, and what was said to the best of your

recollection. The sooner you write it down, the more likely it is to be

accurate and credible.

Address the issue. Make an appointment with the appropriate person to talk

about the problem. Act polite, but be assertive. Do not act defensive. Do not

be confrontative. Describe the events, trends, statements, evaluations, or

actions that are making you feel that there is a problem. Ask the other

person whether your perception is accurate. If they say it is, then ask what

can be done to solve the problem.

If you think your size is the issue, but it has never been mentioned, ask

your employer directly if this is the problem. Again, do not act defensive.

Remember, the problem here is that your employer is prejudiced, not that

there is anything wrong with you.

If nothing can be resolved, inform your employer, politely, that you consider

this to be unfair treatment and that you intend to take steps to address it.

Look into and follow the employee grievance procedures for your company.

Contact your local Equal Employment Opportunity Commission office

(800-669-3362) and the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU).

The Council has a small list of attorneys who have dealt with size

discrimination cases, but if there is no one on the list near your area, ask

your local chapter of the American Bar Association (or a local attorney

referral service) to refer you to a lawyer who specializes in employment

discrimination. Go to www.abanet.org/referral/home.html

Read the books and articles listed in the Council’s bibliography on size

discrimination, including the summaries of major court cases. Make this and

all other information available to your attorney. Keep copies of everything

you give your attorney.

Even though there are very few laws and ordinances which prohibit size

discrimination, there have been many successful court cases against employers

who discriminate against their large-size employees. The Council is happy to

act as a consultant to individuals and attorneys involved in weight

discrimination cases, and asks that you keep us informed. 

Over the last couple days we have heard time and again about the steroid and HGH scandal in professional baseball and how men who take these substances gain an unfair advantage over others in the sport. There is talk of stripping men of honors or banning them from the game for some time for using these drugs. I have a bigger concern than the level playing field, whatever that means. I have serious concern about the impact these men’s actions have on impressionable young men and older boys who may start down the same self destructive path. Let’s face it, there are grave health risks in this behavior and there is reason to take a dim view of these activities. The steroids also increase aggression and make the person taking it a ticking bomb. They can easily be pushed over the edge and harm or kill someone else. I agree with stripping the participants of honors and records if the drug use can be proven.

I felt saddened when I heard about a week ago of Marion Jones being stripped of her Olympic medal. I was also saddened by Floyd Landis being stripped of the Tour de France win for using steroids. These two put so much effort into these sports as did the baseball players who are being charged. But I know that if each of them did as charged, the action was right. But my heart was sad for them.

And my mind wandered to other things. Why have only a limited group of sports figures been singled out for disgrace while others continue in practices that have damaging effects on them and the impressionable ones who watch, some of those even more damaging? Should those in the limelight be penalized for these activities as are the athletes?

Look at fashion models and entertainers who starve themselves to be ultra-thin. They set a standard of appearance that young girls aspire to, some of these and the young girls who look to them die of anorexia. Karen Carpenter, one very talented singer died in February 1983 and August 2, 2006 a Brazilian model, Luisel Ramos died of the results of anorexia. Later that year on November 17, 2006 Brazilian model Ana Carolina Reston also died of anorexia. There are many others. But as tragic as this is, it is but the tip of the iceberg. Many others lives are shortened by as much as forty years. We could argue that they have the right to do with their bodies as they wish but isn’t that statement inconsistent with the stripping athletes of their medals? And the damage they do goes far beyond what happens to their own bodies. I personally knew one young girl who starved herself to death in this way. And there are others I am aware of who have drastically shortened their lives by this activity. The media focuses on obesity but the other end of the scale is even more deadly. And the press for being thin that is fueled by the entertainment industry, abetted by its accomplice, the same media that is feasting on the baseball players. They focus attention on the super models asd make role models of them that young girls want to follow.

A very few fashion shows have started requiring a health certificate for models to participate and are using a BMI (Body Mass Index) in the 17-18 range as a guide. A person with a height of five foot seven inches and a weight of one hundred fifteen pounds has a BMI of 18. A normal BMI is 18.5 to 24.5. When a person gets below 17 the risks escalate. Below 17 it gets very risky. These rules are a good start but because they are not universal and there are still shows that will not only hire women below 17 BMI, they tend to give preference to them so there is still pressure to be overly thin. I dislike government intervention but something should be done. I would prefer the modeling industry police itself but I would also prefer those who consider robbing banks police themselves but that is a vain hope. Government intervention is sorely needed.

Look at the Hollywood women (and men) and the amount of plastic surgery that is being done in the quest for perfection. Many have had breast enhancement. This has pressed the need for perfect sized breasts to the point that in 2005 over 330,000 girls eighteen and under had breast enhancement in the United States. There are approximately two million girls of each age in the U.S. If you assume that only those fifteen through eighteen would have breast enhancement that means about one third of a million girls out of eight million or one of twenty four girls have the procedure each year! With this incidence several anesthesia deaths a year is expected if the screening of candidates for he surgery is stringent. With the press for this beauty corners are cut, both by surgeons and by patients not telling the doctor everything which is even more dangerous because the doctor cannot anticipate problems. In addition to this there are other surgical risks, bleeding, infection to name two. The incidence of these problems is low but remember, this is not a procedure to save a life, it is to make the person more attractive.

But this is only part of the equation. Many celebrities misuse drugs including alcohol. Many of them do it publicly and many do it while driving. Too often this misuse is treated as something humorous or a desirable part of their persona. The substances are detrimental to their health and they set a tone for impressionable fans. Shouldn’t these be treated the same as athletes who used drugs? Why shouldn’t an actor, actress or singer who is caught DUI or fails a drug test be prohibited from being considered for any award for a year, and longer on second offense? Maybe they should be stripped of past awards. Why shouldn’t they be prohibited from performing publicly for a year or two? The media could help with this, they could easily quit inviting them as guests on shows. But ratings for the media override the public good.

How about taking awards from entertainers who commit despicable acts, who commit assaults against others? How about recording companies and production companies refusing to use people who have recently been convicted of felonies. How about stripping them of past honors or preventing them from being considered in the future?

Are these in baseball being singled out? Unless this is taken across the board, yes.