This week In the Hot Seat with Larry LeBlanc: Jean Michel Jarre, president, the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC).
Leave it to a celebrated French composer, performer and music producer to rally creators from around the world.
In an inspiring keynote conversation at the fourth biennial World Creators Summit in Washington, D.C. this month, electronic music pioneer Jean Michel Jarre lauded the future of intellectual property and copyright as well as creators’ interests.
Then at the annual meeting of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) in Washington D.C. on June 7, 2013 Jarre was elected as its new president.
Jarre succeeds the late Robin Gibb, who passed away May, 2012, and French visual artist/painter Hervé Di Rosa, who had served as CISAC’s acting president for the past year.
Founded in 1926, CISAC--headquartered in Paris--is a non-governmental, not-for-profit global network of collective management organizations; uniting 231 authors’ societies and guilds in 121 countries; representing more than three million creators and publishers from such sectors as music, film, visual arts, and the literary world.
CISAC is headquartered in Paris with four regional offices based in Budapest, Hungary (European Affairs), Santiago, Chile (Latin American and Caribbean Affairs), Johannesburg, South Africa (African Affairs) and Singapore (Asia-Pacific Affairs).
CISAC deals with legal, business and technical questions related to royalty flow, digital exchange of information on works, creativity and cultural diversity, and the status and rights of creators.
CISAC enables collective management organizations to represent creators across the globe and ensure that royalties flow to authors for the use of their works anywhere in the world.
CISAC’s budget is based on the annual subscriptions of its members, and the entry fees of new members. The subscription is based on a percentage of the gross royalties collected annually by a member society in the territories in which it operates.
Jarre’s role as CISAC’s president is to represent, and voice the opinion of the international community of creators, and to defend the system of collective administration that protects their rights.
His stature in contemporary popular music cannot be understated.
Along with the likes of Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream in the 1970s, the prolific Jarre provided the breakthrough of electronic music, selling over 80 million recordings to date.
When the late Hal David became president of ASCAP in 1980, American composer and lyricist Irving Berlin asked, “Why do you want to be president for? You are such a good songwriter.” I will ask you the same question. You are such a great musician, why do you want to be president of CISAC?
First of all being head of CISAC is not the same as the head of ASCAP. It doesn’t demand the same amount of work, energy and day-to-day responsibility. I am happy to take the responsibility. Obviously, I have my own career, and all of my other activities. But I think also that at one stage when we have the privilege to have the kind of life that we have as established artists that it’s time to give back. Not just to give back only to our audience, and to our community of fans, but also to give back to all of these hundreds of members working through all of the (collective rights management) societies, and publishing companies. All of these people without whom I wouldn’t be speaking to you today. It’s a quite natural thing to do, in my opinion, representing the world of creators.
The global transition to digital is creating greater opportunities for creators to reach consumers than ever before. But, there has been a disruptive effect through all of the creative industries. It’s important that creators assert their rights if their ability to create and earn a living is being affected.
I couldn’t agree more. The reality and the solution also, is to consider what we are talking about as a global issue. The problem of intellectual property and copyright cannot be reduced to a problem of royalties, and authors’ rights. It is much wider than that for different reasons. First of all, it is affecting all sectors of creations such as photographs, films, graphic arts, video games, literature, journalism, and music, obviously.
Prior to the internet, those creative sectors were well-defined and separated. As well, almost every country had a different approach to copyright. Intellectual property and copyright weren’t looked upon as global issues.
You are right, but there’s also the good side, and the bad side of the internet. You (as a creator) can be global, but you also have the problem becoming global through means and ways (with internet content providers) that have not had the time to think about the collateral damages that they would create. Let’s realize that all of these giants of internet were not existing 50 years ago. They became so big that they didn’t realize the amount of collateral damages that they may create. They were a bunch of kids just having a great idea. Creating YouTube, and Google without realizing that one day they could be considered as devils. All that went so fast. It took our (collective rights management) societies by surprise.
At the same time, countries have had a different framework for handling copyright or no protection at all.
Absolutely, and this is part of the problem that you are pointing out. It is part of the problem because now, even though we still all have our own regulations, the problems are standard worldwide, and are global. Now we must find a global answer to that. This is the reason why we have to widen our views about these issues.
How do you suggest doing that?
First of all by considering that (lack of protection of) intellectual property is affecting everybody more or less at the same level. Outside of the Western world, it’s even worse. If you take Africa, the Far East or some of the emerging countries, it’s even worse. How many designer patterns in the aboriginal culture from Malaysia or the Fiji Islands have been stolen by the advertising world? (Then) from the fashion designers themselves who were ignoring that they were stealing.
When you say that each territory has a different point of view; it’s true, and it’s not true. Europe is Brussels (capital of the European Union). So more and more there is only going to be one voice. It’s a different one (voice) in America. Lots of other territories, like in the S.E. Asia, they didn’t have any kind of strategy about intellectual property because it simply did not exist.
India is starting the (copyright review) process with quite interesting regulations that we should explore. I was in China last month (May) and, for the first time in its history, China is ready to recognize intellectual property, and explore copyright.
Among the countries needing changes in basic copyright laws are China, India, and Brazil.
Yes. That also takes time. I was in China for an international congress and summit in Hangzhou with the theme "Culture: Key to Sustainable Development.” As I said, for the first time, China seems to be willing to consider copyright and intellectual property issues. Probably they realize that they would make more money by officializing rights than controlling piracy.
This is one step.
The other thing that I would add is that in my new position at CISAC, I asked to be surrounded by VPs (vice-presidents) from different countries. We have sculptor (Ousmane Sow) from Senegal; Angélique Kidjo, the singer from Benin in Africa; an Argentinean film director (Marcelo Piñeyro); also a script writer (Javed Akhtar) from India to show the world, and governments that the intellectual property issue is a much wider issue than the problem of established artists sitting on their pot of gold in America or in Europe. It’s a global problem. Also the fact that it’s not only an issue for the music industry or the film, but for lots of other sectors of creation.
These vice-presidents, or ambassadors, are much better positioned to create lobbies in their own territories, and in their own countries. So by pushing a button what I hope is that suddenly we can have thousands of artists--relevant and established artists, and also beginners--able to express themselves to Brussels and to Washington. This is a huge force if you think about it. The problem we have as artists is that we are not organized. It’s not in our DNA to launch any kind of global strategy.
You played in China in 1981, and 2004.
I was the first Western musician to play China just after the fall of the Gang of Four in 1981. It was like playing on the moon at that stage. People had been cut off for 25 years.
How did Chinese first hear of you?
The British Embassy gave Chinese radio (Radio Beijing) copies of my recordings, they played my music. It was the first Western music being played on the radio. Then, I was invited for a masters class at the Conservatory of Music in Beijing. From that, they decided to invite me for some concerts. It was just at the beginning of Deng Xiaoping’s era. Then they shut the country again. I kept lots of contacts with artists, writers and musicians there. I was asked to play (China) again in 2004 in the Forbidden City. It was after 1989 (protests in Tian'anmen Square). I asked all of my Chinese friends--artists, writers and musicians---if it was the right thing to do after Tian'anmen Square. They all said yes. “You are known in China, and you are not Chinese. It’s good way for us to mark our presence as artists in the centre of Beijing.”
[In 1981, the British Embassy gave Radio Beijing copies of Jean Michel’s Jarre’s albums, “Oxygène” and “Équinoxe” which became the first pieces of Western music to be played on Chinese national radio in decades. China then invited Jarre to perform in China, becoming the first Western musician to do so. His concert series, “The Concerts in China,” ran from 18 Oct. 18th to Nov. 5th, 1981.
Jarre returned to China in 2004 to launch “The Year of France,” a cultural exchange between the two countries. Jarre performed at the historic Forbidden City for the main section of the concert, and Tian'anmen Square in front of the non-VIP audience for the encore. The concert was broadcast live on China’s national TV to more than a billion viewers.]
The intricacies of copyright is new territory for the Chinese.
Everything is a matter of time with China. At the moment, with my team, we have a lot of different contacts with the Chinese. We feel that they want to be part of the worldwide system of publishing of authors’ rights and all that. Look at what’s going on with Korea, which is not trying to take artists worldwide. It’s a step by step situation. They (Chinese) are controlling so much in their country which may be a problem in terms of human rights. On the other side, they are ready--even more than ourselves--to control intellectual proprieties. And, they are willing now.
At the same time, there’s a strong push for copyright reform now occurring globally through domestic reviews, and in international forums like WIPO.
Yeah, I think that is obviously due to the major changes of how to produce, distribute, sell and consume music, cinema, photography and so on through the new networks, through the internet. Obviously, suddenly that is all changing. It been like a shock for our society.
When I wrote “Oxygène” at the beginning of my career for my first album not many of us were involved in ecology and environment issues. We were considered dreamers at that time. Even by governments. Step by step realization of the issue developed. Today, it’s in the minds, more or less, of everybody around the world that we have to protect the planet; that we have to be careful of our environment. This is something that everybody understands. Then because the street and the public opinion is considered that as important, every political party in the world in the last five or ten years had to integrate ecology as part of their program. It’s the reason why I think that intellectual property today is in exactly the same situation. We have to put that issue to the street, to public opinion.
Copyright touches people every single day in every part of their lives. Creators and content owners however, have done a poor job of putting forth that point of view while the tech sector continues to keep trying to limit the scope of copyright.
You’re right, but I think that it’s also part of our responsibility (to change that scenario). You can’t think that on the web side that you have bad guys symbolizing the future--being Google and the big companies of the internet--and on the other side, there’s poor victims sitting on their rights.
This is false for two reasons.
First of all, I think that we have to be clear to everybody outside about the reality of our problems. Our problems are the problem of society. Culture is one of the major elements of our societies, and our civilization. And everybody is able to understand that. To reduce the problem of intellectual property to the problem of copyright is not particularly exciting to the public. They would say, “Oh yeah, it’s those rich artists facing the future, and facing changes while trying to keep their advantages.” That is absolutely surreal when you think that artists, creators and the artistic world have always through the centuries been symbols of the outsiders. Being people questioning societies, and questioning systems.
We have to re-appropriate this image to ourselves. The image of creators being perceived by the public opinion as only people wanting to keep their advantages is wrong. We have to explain how difficult it is for an African artist to create and be successful, or to be a mother wanting to write a book and having her kids around and not being able to think about if she can survive with what she is trying to do. As well, any kids in the music business today, if they want to perform or compose, they need to have a second job because they can’t live anymore on what they are going to do in the music field or the graphic arts field so on. Very few of them.
It (economic realities of being an artist) is something that certainly talks to everyone. On our side, the problem is that we have not been clear enough as creators to say, “This is a global problem.” We can’t reduce the problem of intellectual property to only a problem of royalties or a problem of authors’ rights or creators’ rights. It is much wider than that.
While rights holders have come, a long way in simplifying the licensing process, there’s a long way to go. Service developers still complain of the licensing being complex and unwieldy. The exclusive rights of the creators must continue to evolve in a way to guarantee that they receive appropriate remuneration, but it may lead to the control by copyright owners not being absolute.
What are we talking about as “a long way to go?” What does it mean? Ten years,15 years, 30 years? Even if it’s long for a scale of a human being. Everything takes time. The good thing is that we need each other. The giants of the internet need content and, as creators, we need their (distribution) pipes. So we have to find a solution. The way to achieve this--or to try to progress in this way--is to be as global as they are. We have to change scale. We are talking about giants who are quite relevant worldwide. We, as creators, have to be also. We are also already a very strong sector worldwide. We are as worldwide as Google is as long as we can join forces.
Join forces to territories, and join forces of creators.
I will give you an example. You, as a journalist, are in the same boat. You were not in the same boat 5 or 10 years ago. You (the media) were almost against—not yourself personally—the idea that we should get money for the music played on the internet. What I am saying is that the media is now going to follow us. And that’s a big change. They have to be on the boat. They are involved. They are concerned. Our issues is their issue as well.
The U.S. Copyright Office is now considering the first comprehensive review of copyright since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was enacted 15 years ago. With the U.S. advocating for stronger copyright protection through such treaties as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the international community will be closely observing any movement in American domestic law.
Times of confusion are always positive for artists and creators. Twenty or 25 years ago--which is not that long--all of Hollywood was quite against the idea of the extension of copyright. Then they realized that they may lose their copyrights. So they rushed to Washington, D.C., and tried to change that.
The perception of copyright has changed everywhere. It has constantly been changing over the past 10 years because of the huge development of the internet. Everybody is concerned now. We also have a responsibility in the Western hemisphere that the more we become global that the more we will have a chance to change things.
It (copyright change) is also purely political, if you consider it on a purely political point of view. In the United States, it’s very political to consider that copyright is not only an American/European issue. But it’s a worldwide issue. (Copyright reform is) to give back to lots of people we owe a lot to. This is also a way to restore some of those things.
People also need to reinforce their identity. We know between ourselves that culture—music, cinema, graphic arts—is so important to maintain the identity of a country or a community. Look at what’s going on in Mali at the moment during all this conflict all around the world. We know that music, images and any kind of web expression are the first means of soothing the scars of conflict.
So if you take all of these considerations in perspective, suddenly the issue of copyrights may fit in a very positive way, politically speaking. When you take all sectors of creators working with millions of people all around the world generating tens of millions jobs and employment.
Obviously, we still have issues of how to define the new regulations for copyright but, even before that, I would say we have to reinforce the fact that for social reasons the notion of intellectual property is part of the attitude. Then we will be able to speak at the same level as Google and YouTube.
Google and YouTube being worldwide, we as creators must convey and express a clear message worldwide, and convey a common message.
[America’s copyright legislation primarily stems from the Copyright Act of 1976 which took most of two decades to be negotiated and voted upon. The law was updated in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to take into account digital developments.
At this month’s World Creators Summit in Washington, D.C., U.S. register of copyright Marie Pallente called for Congress to perform a comprehensive review of copyright. Pallente also called for a "more complete public performance right for sound recordings, something that record labels and artists have long sought." Revision must also address, she indicated, orphan works, a considerable cause of gridlock in the digital marketplace.]
The last time there was copyright reform in America was in 1976, and it took two decades for the changes to come into effect. The needs today are too pressing to repeat that experience.
The good thing of one aspect of what you are saying is that things are accelerating. Also societies are working on lots of different sectors. Why not copyright? We have to be more and more reactive.
Are you self-published?
All the way back to your early albums, Oxygène” and “Équinoxe?”
I used to be co-publisher until 15 years ago, and then I became my own publisher.
So you are aware of how the role of music publisher has changed to now handling a series of micro-transactions.
It’s the same old story. When the recording industry started in the ‘40s and ‘50s publishers said. “This is the end of our job.” Before, we were the ones owning the marketing of productions, the hiring, and all of these different things.
Today, publishers are involved in not only licensing, and monetization of works, but also securing data as well.
Yeah, it’s up to us to adapt. Why should we refuse? And this is part of the problem. We have always (as creators) been perceived by society and outsiders as being visionaries, having vision, questioning societies so on. Suddenly, we are in a sense having a reactionary type of attitude. Okay, it has happened to us a few times as publishers in the history of music. We have to reinvent ourselves. We have to create new perspectives for the publishing business. We also have to find the answers. We have to stop complaining. We have to portray a positive image to the world, and join forces and find a way to deal with the (distribution) new pipes and the new (internet) actors.
Meanwhile, collective rights management organizations are under pressure to deliver more accurate services to their members, and to their licensees. And several American music publishers are licensing directly to digital outlets, changing traditional music publishing models based upon collective rights management.
First of all, we have to promote the idea that this constant greed for free content is starving creativity. This is something that everybody can understand. Point number two, when we are talking about smart phones, a phone is a lot less smart without music, cinema, or video. We have video games, music, journalism, and literature and so on available. This is a message that people may understand, and will understand. If the public opinion does understand all that, they will be ready to say, “Okay, in the price of a tablet or a smart phone, we have to find a way to compensate, finance and pay for all these creators.”
The (distribution) pipes are changing, and the way of promoting, producing and distributing music is changing. It also means that we have to change the way creators are compensated. One of the battles is we need to get some monies from those manufacturers of hardware, like we did for radio stations and from TV.
A private copying levy for digital audio devices like the IPod and other MP3 players has been blocked in many countries.
Yes, but this is again only by having a clear message worldwide (that can be changed). I think that the difficultly that we have is that we are approaching this problem territory by territory. What is good thing about CISAC being that kind of “sleeping beauty” so far is that it’s the only entity uniting so many different author rights societies, and so many different types of creative activities. This is a very good platform to try to ease the process of talking at the same level.
Back to publishers licensing directly with digital platforms. Traditionally, the strength of music publishers has been in collective rights management.
Yeah, you are right. Collective societies, and rights societies, they have to evolve also. It is something too that we have to clarify, even between ourselves. All over the world there so many creators not even understanding what PRS, BMI, ASCAP, SACEM, and GEMA are. Many artists still consider those entities are attached to the tax system of their country. There’s a lack of information, and lack of education (of the music publishing industry.) The key of our conversation could be summed up in one word, “education.” Education within our sector. We need education to change public opinion. We should also go to the street where we belong—to send a clear message which is just not a message of being negative, complaining, being perceived as victims. Nobody wants to see an artist considered as a victim.
A judgment by the EU General Court on April 12, 2013 rejected the EU Commission’s 2008 decision that CISAC's European societies have engaged in a concerted practice aimed at restricting competition in the market. The EU Commission had alleged that societies have engaged in concerted practices and illegally reached an arrangement on the territorial scope of their respective reciprocal representation agreements.
The 2008 decision was a surprise.
Yes, do you know why (that happened)? Because all of the big actors of the internet are much more organized in terms of lobbying. They have people employed full-time in Brussels, and Washington and in different places. We should educate ourselves in our sector because how many publishers are even aware of what you are talking about? How many authors are even aware of the fact even CISAC exists? A few years ago, I wasn’t aware of the existence of CISAC, myself. All of these (industry) acronyms. There are so many different entities in the music world, and in the film industry that people are bored to death by the communiqués made by all of these entities. Even if they have the best intention in the world, this is too specialized. We are not clear enough in what are the problems, and what are the solutions.
Will LINK, the independent creators’ strategic think-tank, provide a dialogue within the different creative sectors?
Absolutely. You know as well as I that this (intellectual property and copyright) is affecting very few people, and even very few people in our sector. What about, for instance, even to communicate, to the media? We have to be clear in what we say and clear in what kind of problems that we are facing.
[At the recently World Creators Summit, CISAC announced the launch of LINK, an independent creators’ strategic think-tank made up of artists from music, drama, literature, audio-visual and visual arts. The aim of LINK is to facilitate and enhance the communication and understanding between the creative community, collective management societies, and decision makers.]
Our issues are the issues of every family in the world, every individual, because creation—culture--is one of the main element of our life wherever we are. This is something that has not been promoted in this way in the past few years. We just sent a rather negative message with artists and publishers complaining. Then being perceived by the public opinion and by the media themselves as being rich kids complaining about the fact they are going to losing their advantages. This (strategy) is not particularly sexy or trendy and warm. We have to promote ourselves and our situation in a different way. Our problem is the problem of every individual on earth. I am absolutely convinced that the more we are global the better we will be understood by the community in Washington and Brussels as well as worldwide.
Last month, after handing over command of the International Space Station, but before returning home, Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield released a music video recorded on the ISS of David Bowie’s "Space Oddity.” Did you have a flashback moment to your 1986 collaboration with astronaut Ron McNair?
When I heard about the astronaut wanting to play music, obviously, it reminded me of this quite hard time, but also some very moving moments.
All of my concerts, I could write a book around,this (1986) concert in Houston is absolutely formidable because of the link with NASA. For the first time in its history NASA wanted to be part of a cultural event. We had this idea of having a live link in space, and a song performed, not just as an engineer and a scientist, but also an artist playing saxophone live. It was really moving. Writing a piece of saxophone for NASA is quite challenging for a musician.
Then we did it, and Ron was rehearsing until the last minute. “Okay, I’ll give you a rendezvous in space,” which was a time to play together. With me in Houston, onstage over the (Houston) skyline, and him in outer space. He said, “Watch me on television for the take-off.” And it was Challenger, and we saw the tragedy. We were all in tears. I wanted to cancel the whole thing. The astronauts in Houston said “You have to go on. You have to do this concert as a tribute to the astronauts. It was very moving.
[In 1985, Jean Michel Jarre was invited by the Houston Grand Opera to perform a concert celebrating Houston’s 150th anniversary, and the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred when Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its 7 crew members, including Ronald McNair, a physicist and NASA astronaut.
Consideration was given to the canceling “Rendez-vous Houston” but Jarre was urged to proceed in memory of the shuttle's crew.
For the concert on April 5th 1986, the entire skyline of Houston formed the backdrop for the show. Some 2,000 projectors shone images onto buildings and giant screens up to 1,200 feet high, transforming the city’s skyscrapers into spectacular backdrops for an elaborate display of fireworks and lasers. “Rendez-vous Houston” entered the Guinness Book of Records for its audience of over 1.5 million.]
Is it true that you recorded "Oxygène" in a home studio, and had a hard time getting a label to pick it up?
It was in the days when the tradition of recording music was not in a home studio. I recorded, probably, in the first home studio ever in my flat (on Rue de la Trémoille, near the Champs-Élysées) in an old bathroom that I transformed into a home studio. When I did “Oxygène.” it was refused by so many record companies.
The album clashed with everything going on at the time.
That’s right. It was right at the beginning of punk and disco. It was refused by almost all record labels (with executives) saying, “What’s that? It’s not done (recorded) with real instruments. You have no singers, and no drums. The songs last for 7 or 8 minutes so it has no chance (at radio)”. A small record label (Disques Motors) took the project, and you know the rest of the story afterwards.
Synthesizers were only then becoming popular with a handful of avant-garde musicians.
It was in the days when synthesizers were not the computers as we know now. We were basically doing music with oscillators and stuff from laboratories or hospitals wherever we could fine strange engines on machines making noises.
We were considered a bunch of crazy guys doing strange noises and sounds with odd machines. What really convinced me, and really blew me away at that time was that I studied with Pierre Schaeffer. They (at the Groupe de Recherches Musicales) were the first ones that were saying that music is not only made of notes but it’s made of sound, and that the difference between noise and music is at the hand of the musician. That was absolutely crazy at that time but if you look at what’s going on today, sound design is part of the new electronic scene. The biggest music scene today is the DJ electronic music scene, and this (sound concept) is absolutely part of the day to day of the life of a musician today.
Back then musicians like yourself and Frank Zappa, as well as Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream were musical rebels. We have few rebels today in the music industry.
That’s a very good point, Larry. It’s a really good point because the word rebel is very appropriate. We need to restore this kind of rebel attitude that we have always had.
Perhaps, we should use the French word, provocateur.
That’s exactly right. Provocateur. The French word for that. We need to restore that image. Because that is also one of our major assets, one of our major strengths in facing the internet and facing all of this. As I said earlier, a smart phone is a lot less smart without creators.
You are performing in Tunisia on August 12th, 2013 at the Carthage Festival. Will you be debuting new works?
I decided after a long tour that I finished 18 months to stop, and prepare new music. I am working on two new albums these days. I had decided not to doing any concert this year. Then I got asked for this Carthage Festival in Tunisia and because it’s UNESCO World Heritage Site, and I’m UN Ambassador for UNESCO, I made an exception. As well, there aren’t that many concerts over there. So I decided to it. It’s not going to be with new material. I saving that for the release of my next album which will hopefully be by the end of this year or early next year. Then I will be doing a tour, probably in the United States and in Canada in 2014.
If your 2000 album “Métamorphoses” was a departure from your past music, will these new albums also be departures?
I have all sorts of new material in my own pipes to send to all of the other (distribution) pipes in the next few months. These days, you have so many things in the market. Available. If you don’t have anything especially to say, don’t release movies, books or records. I have lots of tracks that I want to release. I have composed lots of things that I want to share with the audience, and in some collaborations. Also do some soundtrack projects.
Perhaps, we will hear the provocateur side of your creative personality.
I hope so. That’s exactly the word.
Larry LeBlanc is widely recognized as one of the leading music industry journalists in the world. Before joining CelebrityAccess in 2008 as senior editor, he was the Canadian bureau chief of Billboard from 1991-2007 and Canadian editor of Record World from 1970-89. He was also a co-founder of the late Canadian music trade, The Record.
Larry is the recipient of the 2013 Walt Grealis Special Achievement Award, recognizing individuals who have made an impact on the Canadian music industry.
He has been quoted on music industry issues in hundreds of publications including Time, Forbes, and the London Times. He is co-author of the book “Music From Far And Wide.”
.Industry Profile Archives:
© 2001-2017 Gen-Den Corporation. All rights reserved.|
CelebrityAccessSM and Gen-DenSM are service marks of Gen-Den Corporation.
** ENCORE readers and those that utilize ENCORE features are bound by the ENCORE NEWSLETTER USE AGREEMENT. If you choose not to be bound by this agreement, please discard the e-mail and notify us of your desire to be removed from future mailings. **