This week In the Hot Seat with Larry LeBlanc: Donald S. Passman, lawyer/author.
Now in its ninth edition, Donald S. Passman's remarkably easy-to-read primer, ďAll You Need To Know About The Music Business,Ē continues being an essential asset for those in the music industry.
This new edition focuses on digital rights and how theyíre evolving, as well as the nature of streaming deals and how they are beginning to pay off. It also addresses the potential legal fight between the Department of Justice and performing rights organizations, which could change the way performance royalties are collected in the United States.
For the past 35 years, Passman has practiced law at Gang, Tyre, Ramer & Brown in Beverly Hills. During his career there, he has represented such major acts as Adele, Janet Jackson, Green Day, Pink, Stevie Wonder, Paul Simon, Tina Turner, Quincy Jones, Mariah Carey, Don Henley, Tom Waits, Bryan Adams, Bonnie Raitt, and Randy Newman.
As well Passman has also represented publishers, record companies, managers, producers, film companies, and other significant music industry players.
Passman grew up in Dallas, Texas until his family moved to North Hollywood when he was 12. He went on to be a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Texas, and a Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law School.
After graduation, Passman worked for a tax firm which, when he was hired, had indicated it would be expanding into entertainment. After 18 months, when the firm had still not developed that business significantly, Passman decided to join Gang, Tyre, Ramer & Brown founded in 1931.
In the late Ď80s, Passman was teaching a course on the music industry at the University Southern California Law School's Advanced Professional Program. He felt that his class notes for that year would make a good outline for a book. As well, he figured that there was a need in the market for a book on how to make it in the music business.
The result was the first version of ďAll You Need To Know About The Music BusinessĒ which was a solid success. Passman revises the book every three years, and total sales to date are 500,000 copies. Passman revises the book every three years.
He has also written three books of fiction, ďThe Visionary,Ē "Mirage,Ē and most recently, ďThe Amazing Harvey.Ē
With your first version of the book in 1991, you set out to simplify complex music industry issues?
Yes. I know my audience. I am dealing with people who donít like to read. Musicians, in particular, are oriented toward their ears, and not their eyes. As it should be. So big print, and lots of pictures. One of the things that I canít take credit for other than itís a gift is that I have always in life been able to take something very complicated, and make it simple. It is just something that comes easy to me. I set out intentionally to write a very simple, easy-to-read, step-by-step guide on how to understand the (music) business. That was the goal because I thought that there was a need in the marketplace for people who donít like business to have something they could take in small doses and understand it.
There are now foreign versions of your book?
Yes. Thereís a Canadian version with (Canadian lawyer/manager) Chip Sutherland. Thereís a British version which Iím now updating with Chris Organ. That lags a good 6-9 months (behind the U.S. version). Thereís a German version done with a lawyer there. I have no idea if itís any good because I canít read German.
Is it as difficult today as ever for an emerging artist to break into the music industry?
Itís difficult for different reasons. Itís difficult because the potential pool of buyers has shrunk in the industry. So if you are dealing with the major record companies, there are only three, and obviously with some sub-labels. The good news is that there are more independents. Itís probably easier to get a break than in the past because it (the industry) has shifted. It used to be that there were six majors, and very few independents because they had been gobbled up by the majors. Itís also difficult because the industry is not doing really well. I think that we have stabilized which is good news. But deals are harder to make. You have a more corporate culture in the industry than ever before. So expect that if you are doing a substantial deal, that it has to go up to corporate executives for approval.
Iím a believer in that there arenít any good old days. That there are difficulties at any time, and there are great positive things at all times. So yeah things are worse now in a lot of ways, but there are opportunities that didnít exist before.
Are young artists and managers smarter about legal matters today? This is the 9th issue of your book. When you started there was no internet nor books available for researching the music industry. Today, thereís no excuse for not knowing the basic of how the music industry works. Are young artists and managers smarter with all of the resources available?
The answer is yes to both of those questions. There is far more information available to artists than there ever was in the past, and artists are smarter about their business.
Do artists take advantage of the information that is available?
A lot of them are, and a lot of them arenít. That I think has been true since day one. The smart artists who care about their business knew enough to know they didnít know it, and they hired somebody who did. The artists that donít care about business, or are intimated by it, and donít like it, if they are smart they will hire somebody to deal with it for them. Or they will just sort of meander along, and get battered as the winds of fate take them.
Iíve always felt it important for an artist to work with the same lawyer for a big bulk of their career. That is if they trust the lawyer, and they do good work. I bet there are artists that you have represented for decades.
Oh yeah, there absolutely are.
Any advice for anyone shopping for an entertainment lawyer other than reading your book.
My book does have a lot of criteria in there about what to look for (in hiring a team including a lawyer). First of all check with the references and make sure that you are talking with someone who is competent. Then once you are sure of that, and you narrow the pool, just go with who you like. Go with who you feel comfortable talking to. Someone who explains things to you in a way that you can understand them, and that isnít going to just pat you on the head, and say, ďI know whatís best. Sign here, kid.Ē If you are interested in business, they will explain things to you. If you arenít interested, it doesnít matter. You want to go with someone that you feel good about, and someone that you feel youíd feel comfortable with if you have uncomfortable questions, or if you had a difficult situation. Someone you feel that youíd be comfortable with talking with in confidence, and they would give you solid advice.
Still a lawyer is not a psychiatrist.
It would be cheaper to hire a psychiatrist than most of us.
Would it be advantageous for an artist or manager to become more business savvy before hiring a lawyer in order to know what questions to ask, so they know if they are getting good advice or not?
It is. Yes, of course it is. But most artists are not going to be interested or willing to put their time or energy into that. They are artists because they are passionate about making music, and thatís where most of their time and energy is going. As it should. Most of them are either intimidated by business or have no interest in it or are bored by it, and really hate it. Itís like going to a dentist for some of them. So they are not going to take the time or energy to research and get themselves sophisticated. Itís just not who they are or what they are interested in doing. There are a few who care about business, but more of them donít. Then they need to make sure that they have people on their team that will take good care of them and will have their back because they do understand the business. A good team member, whether a lawyer or a manager or whatever, will understand creative peopleís needs too, and merge them together (with business). The favorite part of what I do is speaking both languages. I can talk to creative people, and I can talk to business people. Itís like translating from German to French. They really donít speak the same language. Thatís exactly what I enjoy about my job.
A complaint of music's legal ¨community is the lack of young talent. Is there a shortage of young lawyers coming into music?
I donít know if thereís a shortage. I do think that the music industry doesnít attract as many people as it did in the past. A lot of them now go to tech because thatís sexier. So I think that affects things. It also means that the people who are coming into it (the music industry) are much more passionate, and really love music. I think that thereís a pretty good crop of the next generation of lawyers that is coming through. I donít want to sound like an old guy on a park bench, but when I was doing it when I was younger, I got extensive training. We represented record companies in those days which doesnít happen much anymore. I was drafting a lot of contracts. I got a very intense training session, and learned the business from the nuts-and-bolts which doesnít happen as much anymore. I donít know how good the training is today, but I see young lawyers that I think are pretty talented. So i think that there is a good continuity in the crop that is coming along.
Would you agree that the music industry is in a significant transitional period?
Meanwhile, major and independent deals are so diverse, and many niche artists might be better off remaining unsigned. So thereís a lot of different deals, and approaches available.
Yes. Very much so. In a way itís good news as well because if we are getting back to where smaller independents can make money with less sales, we are going to be curating and developing a lot of music that wouldnít have had a chance in the world of everybody throwing major stuff up against the wall. So I think in that sense itís healthy for the business. But we are very much in a transition. Itís not at all clear what the record company of tomorrow looks like. But most likely itís an A&R curation, and a marketing and promotion machine because artists can get distribution on their own now. But if they want to have a worldwide major career, so far nobody has done it without a record label and with their expertise, their money, and their clout.
An artist may still need a label for some aspects of their career. In the old days the majorsí importance was centered on controlling distribution and bankrolling recording and touring. Thatís not true today. But they still provide marketing.
I think thatís right. And the promotion. Also all of them want to see something before they start (with an artist). All the majors do. They want to know that an artist has got a buzz going. They want to know that there is a following on social media and that the artist has already got interest in them so that they can grow it (a career) as opposed to starting at ground zero.
Years ago, labels sent A&R teams to clubs and concerts to discover new talent. Today, A&R is checking out YouTube, and the various social media sites.
Yes, thatís exactly right. The problem is that thereís so much stuff that itís so hard to find the diamond amongst all of the junk. Yes, I think thatís right though. They definitely have scouts watching whose trending and who is starting to get some traction. But the A&R guys also still go out and listen to live music as well
An artist may have 5 to 10 million hits on YouTube, but it doesnít mean they can sell tickets to their shows.
I think thatís right. I know exactly what you are talking about. You donít know. Also people who are now selling arenas, in a few years they could be playing clubs.
There are now companies like BMG representing both music publishing and recording rights as well as other ancillary rights. Not necessarily attaining ownership, but certainly seeking to be in a partnership with artists and songwriters. Thatís a new model for the music industry?
Yes it is. It doesnít work for everybody, but yes, the sort of label services model which Kobalt (Kobalt Music Group) is also doing where they will do a profit share and they will put up money for marketing and recording is a new model that is very interesting, and for the right artist is very profitable.
At their core, major record deals have changed little over the years. Itís interesting that with the rise of the internet and social media that labels seek to directly oversee artist web sites and social media. Is that new?
Itís been around for 5 or 7 years. Something like that. Their argument is that they want to control the messaging and imaging and so forth. If an artist has enough clout, they can take that away from them.
Even if a label doesnít successfully negotiate merchandising rights, they will insist on attaining the rights to merchandise at least one image of the artist.
Yes. And some times more. Certainly, at least, album cover artwork or, maybe, another image or two.
How about rights connected to wallpaper (the background on a mobile device or computer desktop)?
Sometimes. Technically, all of the deals cover it unless you exclude it in some fashion but, yeah, they want to be able to do it.
Traditionally, labels directly negotiated contracts with producers or their managers. Today, artists are more involved with those negotiations, and legal costs are the responsibility of the artist.
Thatís correct. Thatís been true for a long time. For awhile country was sort of holding onto the old model, but even they have gone toward the artist taking care of it.
The controlled composition clause on mechanicalsóhow much the company has to pay for each controlled composition--known as a 3/4 rateóhas been dropped by labels in many territories, but not in the U.S.
Oh yes. Thatís alive and very well, yes.
Not in Canada.
I bet that you have it for (releases) the U.S. In the U.S. we have a controlled comp clause for Canada.
For other international countries as well?
No in the other countries itís just the customary rates.
All label contracts give artists the right to check the books but, in truth thereís no transparency. Neither artist nor managers have a clue what labels are doing with money. Labels donít reveal their deals with Spotify or Apple. So is transparency going to be the next big issue for artists to fight for in contracts?
You know that it is. Itís a little better especially if you have some clout, but itís still difficult. And the record labels still take monies that they try not to share with the artists, although that has gotten a bit better. Most of them have now have been shamed into sharing them in some fashion or other. But thereís not a lot of transparency about exactly how they compute the sharing.
A generation of artists grew up with record club deals where the labels received enormous advances they didnít share, and artists got stuck with 10 LPs for a penny sales with no royalty. Today, itís become increasingly harder for labels to hide advances from services.
Yes I agree. But they are still managing. The artist doesnít have a contractual right to see the deal with Spotify or whatever it is that they have decided to do they do it. Most of the labels will now share what they call ďbreakageĒ meaning unrecouped advances, but it would be very difficult to find out if they (artists) are really getting everything they should be not knowing how they (the labels) computed it, and looking at all the figures, and try knowing exactly what they are supposed to get.
It will be interesting once Spotify has an IPO to see how much major labels would own of the company.
Yes. I have sort of heard ranges. Itís not gigantic.
Probably about 5% to 7%.
Something like that.
Monies that wonít go back directly to artists either.
Not even indirectly back to the artists. I donít think that any of them are intending on sharing that. They look at that as an investment because they paid for it.
Some managers are arguing that 50% of everything be paid to the artist, not 15% or 8% of streaming income. That all digital income should be split evenly. Also if you are an act that doesnít record anymore, and its back catalogue is valuable, it has earned the right to a greater share of income. Finally, the idea of record companies handing back copyrights to artists after a set period, rather than the traditional setup of ownership in perpetuity, is something for which artists like Billy Bragg support. Maybe, as well, label contracts should factor in success and failure.
Yes, I think thatís right. Itís just the idea of why give up an asset because 20 years from now it may be valuable. Look at (American folk musician) RodrŪguez and ďSearching for Sugar Man.Ē You never know when something is going to come up.
Or Murray Wilson selling off Sea of Tunes to Irving Almo for $700,000 in 1969, and the Beach Boysí song catalog being worth $40 million by the 1990s.
Or Queen and ďBohemianĒ RhapsodyĒ in ďWayneís WorldĒ (1992). Not that Queen wasnít doing well before that. But the idea is that some random event down the road could make that valuable. So nobody wants to give up an asset.
I donít understand recapturing of rights in the United States. Why all of the different years?
Itís a good question. We have a complete archaic system which started in 1909. Then it sort of got patch-worked forward and, finally in 1978, we moved to the concept that the rest of the world has which is life of the author plus but even since then it got amended and extended. So now we deal with termination rights for the extra 20 years that got added. So itís interesting.
Earlier this year the Copyright Office issued a 245-page report seeking to shake up music licensing. One suggestion is extending the public performance right and sound recording to radio. Thatís a right pretty well enshrined around the world, but not the United States.
Yes, itís in virtually every industrialized country except the States where we have extremely strong radio station lobbyists
Donít you think that thereís more pressure from labels today because they are losing revenue from physical and other sources. Or has their efforts stalled?
Who do you think has the more powerful lobby the record labels or the radio broadcasters that have stations in every city where the people elected to congress want to reach their constituents?
[In April, 2015 U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler and Marsha Blackburn introduced the Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015 Ė which seeks to impose a performance right that would see artists and labels paid when their tracks are played on AM/FM radio.
Songwriters are currently paid when their tracks are broadcast on terrestrial radio, but performers are not Ė setting the U.S. apart from almost every country in the world. Still artists are paid when their tracks are played on personalized digital radio such as Pandora, and satellite radio such as SiriusXM.
The Fair Pay Act of 2015 seeks the establishment of a sound recording royalty for AM/FM radio, removing satellite radioís below-market-rate exemption, and treating pre-1972 recordings with the same as those made after February of 1972.]
Broadcasters can exert grassroots pressure locally as well as pressure through a lobbying group in Washington.
Exactly. Having said that it has surprisingly taken on a little movement, but for a reason that isnít obvious. That is it is becoming clear that the world is moving to digital and a lot, if not all of the performance money will end up digitally where there is a payment for the master recordings already built into our Copyright Act, the radio stations are saying, ďWell, wait a minute. If we get a little break on digital maybe we can give you something on the terrestrial broadcasts.
Meanwhile, Pandora, which currently operates under statutory rates in the U.S. that are set by the Copyright Royalty Board, wants to be regarded in terms of being a terrestrial radio station. They would like to be from the other end of the broadcasting spectrum.
(Laughing) They would. They certainly would.
Reactions to the recent Copyright Royalty Board decision determining non-interactive streaming music rates hint at action ahead by both sides. Critics believe the rates set by the CRB do not reflect a market price for music, and will further erode the value of music. What's your take on the decision?
Iím not versed enough in the proceedings to really comment, except to say that our entire system of dealing with music rights is very out of date, and that regulated markets generally do not reflect an armís length deal.
[The outcome of the Copyright Tribunal decision was a 20% increase of Pandoraís ad supported stream rate from $0.0014 per non-interactive stream to $0.0017.]
I know your books well, but I was struck in reading the new version how the topography of the music industry has changed so much from when you released the first book.
Absolutely. If you look at it from a publishing standpoint when I started out mechanicals were by far the biggest publishing income. Now itís performances. Thatís mostly because of cable TV and those kinds of broadcasters. As we move into streaming, interestingly, the mechanical portion of streaming, at least in the United States, is much bigger than is the performance side of it. So there are going to be all kinds of things moving around as we head into the future.
Music publishers in America suffer from a legal framework that has prevented the creation of a stand-alone buyer-seller marketplace with mechanical and performing rights. Per capita publishing revenues are significantly lower in America than in Europe, and publishing rights are significantly undervalued compared with recording rights. This became more evident as music fans moved online, where songs are monetized at lower rates.
As a result, several American-based music publishers are taking a much more head-on role in negotiating rights in contrast to traditional collective bargaining. Does direct negotiating by music publishers not weaken the collective bargaining process?
Yes, of course it does. That is one huge issue that is going on right now which is whether or not the Department of Justice is going to allow publishers to withdraw just their digital rights from the collective bargaining.
The problem with the collective bargaining in the U.S. with ASCAP and BMI is that they are under what is known as a ďconsent decree,Ē which means that in order not to be subject to being broken up because they are monopolies or too big under the United States anti-trust laws, basically that consent decree says that you cannot refuse to give a license to someone. That wasnít a big deal until recently because we were all within sort of a range. But what has happened in the digital age where there is no industry norm is that they could never agree on a right between the societies so they ended up going to a rate court which means a judge decides and that takes years. And the decisions have not, in the opinion of the music industry, been very favorable to the publishers. They have been more favorable to the other side, and they donít reflect the market rate. So thatís why thereís a push by the publishers to withdraw because if they withdraw their rights they can say, ďWe are shutting you down. You canít use our music unless you make a deal with us.Ē A very different bargaining power than the societies that say, ďYou can continue using our music while we argue about the rates.Ē
If American music publishers come to directly negotiate those rights, how does it affect the global market?
Itís a good question. Each territory is different but, in essence, the large societies that control mechanicals and performances like SACEM in France, and GEMA in Germany are making their deals with these streaming services. Those are more marketplace type deals.
The music industry is primarily set on the subscription streaming model but the public doesnít seem to want competing music services with separate fees.
I agree. The same way that you donít have three or four different cable companies, particularly if you are getting exactly the same thing in every place. So there will probably be one dominant player that comes through in that market. But, in the meantime, there are still competing services. You can get satellite or you can get a cable and, essentially, get the same thing. Some people have one and some people have the other. I think that there can be more than one in the marketplace. You are quite right. People wonít want to pay for more than one service.
The winner will be the service providing the most licensed and most exclusive music.
Well yes, I think thatís right. Basically, people donít care where it comes from as long as they can get what they what.
How does the battlefield look after Appleís three month giveaway and Spotifyís premium offer?
Spotify, of course, doesnít have a three month limit. You can stay on their free service as long as you like. I donít know if Apple have disclosed their numbers after the free trial period. I really donít know what the numbers are. I think itís a number of million of subscribers at $10 a month. Thatís a business. Maybe not to Apple but to the rest of the world. Spotify is building subscription users and, at this point, itís fairly substantial.
[Appleís CEO, Tim Cook announced in October that the companyís streaming service had amassed 6.5 million paid subscribers and 8.5 million listeners within the three-month free trial period. It was recently confirmed that Apple now has 10 million paying subscribers although there has been no confirmation of how many subscribers are active on the platform. Spotify has an estimated 75 million active users, but only 20 million of those pay a subscription for the service.]
Still the bulk of Spotify users are not paying, and while the ad-supported freemium model may be a gateway to premium paid subscriptions, it also drags down per-user revenues.
Thatís correct. But their free service is advertising supported, so they are paying something. The problem is that are about 3 to 1 free to paid which means that the dollar per subscriber you get on Spotify is substantially less than the dollar per subscribers that you get on Apple because Apple is not diluted by the much lower paying free service.
With live music becoming so important as a revenue stream for artists, I would think that they now have to really look at expense deductions by many promoters.
Oh, yeah. And you are quite right. For a touring artist, by far their biggest money is going to be coming out of touring.
A lot of money is being left on the table whether itís with fake invoices, radio ad rebates, or rebates from ticket vendors. Little of that income will go back to a touring artist.
Unless you are a really major artist and you are in there beating the hell out of them. You are right those things donít find their way into it.
Are these things Irv Azoff would pay attention to?
Oh yeah. Certainly. I guarantee you that the Eagles get every penny.
And even more.
And even more. Even something the promoter didnít know that they had, yeah.
In touring internationally there are withholding taxes that many artists donít consider until itís too late. They should consider that a touring cost upfront.
They absolutely have to do that. If they are a major enough artist, they will have a sophisticated tax accountant that understands the different territories and can minimize the withholdings.
International touring contacts are more complicated and the type of venues, and transportation as well as withholding taxes all have to be considered.
Yes. All of those things. I donít want to give away too many secrets to the Inland Revenue Service, letís just say that it needs to be structured carefully and it can be complex.
As a big successful artist with a pocketful of money, what do I do with my money?
You invest it very conservatively because it may have to last you the rest of your life.
Most artists donít consider that.
Most of them donít. The smart ones do. They have business managers that are pretty conservative. I have never wanted to take major risks with artists. I have had people come to me with all kinds of schemes, and all kinds of ways to save them money, and I never wanted to do it. I just think that itís the wrong thing to do for an artist whose career may be limited.
Do you represent music executives as well?
I do. I have done so in my entire career in one form or the other.
What activities does that include?
Negotiating with the label for their employment contract.
Are executive contracts with labels complicated? Do they cover deal points, and participation on successful recordings?
It depends. If you are dealing with the heads of the label then no. They are usually going to be on a company incentive plan. In fact, the labels donít want executives to have any participation in any artist (royalty) because they would be worried that they would favor those artists. So they deal with an overall plan to make the company successful. If you are dealing with A&R people, most of the companies have an A&R plan which means that they get money for the people that they bring in or the people that they A&R for. It is basically a royalty, but itís more complicated than that. So they do have an incentive for the people that they are working on.
A George Martin clause?
(Laughing) It could be. It could be. Itís really the Snuff Garrett clause. He was the first A&R (executive) to ever want to get a royalty because he was producing records. He went in and said, ďIf you want to keep me, I want a royalty.Ē I think he wanted a penny a record, and they went crazy.
Probably it was when he was at Liberty Records.
It was Liberty.
[In 1959, the late Snuff Garrett became a staff producer at Liberty Records in Hollywood at age 19, after having joined the label to work in the promotions department. Garrett produced a string of hits, and became the label's head of A&R until he left Liberty in 1966. Among his roster of artists at Liberty were Bobby Vee, Johnny Burnette, Gene McDaniels, Buddy Knox, Walter Brennan, Gary Lewis & the Playboys and Del Shannon. He later worked with Sonny & Cher, Brenda Lee, and guitarist Sonny Curtis.]
Plus Snuff was an artist himself working under the moniker ďThe 50 Guitars of Tommy Garrett.Ē He released 25 instrumental albums, six of which charted on Billboardís album chart.
You are right. You certainly know your history. He was a sweet guy and one of my early clients and he was a friend of my parents since he was 18 back in Texas. Iíve known him all of my life.
Producers in that era werenít generally paid for what work they did in-house.
Thatís right. Snuff went independent fairly early on when he was doing all of this producing and he started his own label and company (Snuff Garrett Records and Viva Records)...
Sometimes artists and songwriters receive advice they cast in stone about what to give up or not to give up. How many times have you heard, ďIíve been told not to give up my publishing?Ē To me, it depends on who is going to work it.
Quite a bit I hear that, and I tell people that sometimes. It depends as you say on the situation. Sometimes itís the right thing to do, and sometimes it not.
Most major music publishers have expanded and are now developing master recordings.
Thatís right and so have managers as well because the record companies have cut back so radically on their staffs that they no longer do the jobs that they used to. So either managers and/or publishers supplement them and can be a real plus to the equation.
Two decades ago, labels told an artist and their manager, ďHereís your marketing plan.Ē Today, managers may have their own marketing plans that can be developed in working with labels.
Yes. Good managers have done that for a long time, but these days itís more prevalent. In fact, a lot of the managers execute the plan. Not just saying, ďHereís the planĒ because they know that the label is not going to do it.
Well the with the major labelsí dominance at retail has been greatly diminished over the years with the rise of power by artists. Labels donít have the clout they once had.
That reminds me of a story. When Jim Fifield took over EMI (in 1988)óhe came out of the food business (as VP at General Mills, and then was president/CEO of CBS/Fox Video)óI asked, ďSo Jim whatís the biggest difference between the food business and the music business?Ē He thought for a minute and said, ďIn the music business the product has an opinion. If you want to change a ketchup bottle label, it doesnít argue with you.Ē
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.
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 ďMusic From Far And Wide.Ē
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 is a board member of the Mariposa Folk Festival in Orillia, Ontario.
.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. **