Do churches need to license CCM to sing in worship?

[NotUrAvgGuy]

For those of you in the know, it seems my church used to sing a mix of songs including some you might hear on contemporary Christian radio. Then that stopped. Now it's all songs I have never heard of. There are a lot of good praise and worship songs out there that you might hear on the radio but my church has quit using any of it. It got me wondering if it's a licensing issue. I am wondering if there is a big expense or just a big hassle in using CCM in worship? I could ask but don't want to be perceived as complaining about the music. It's not a complaint but a curiosity. I feel like I am forever singing new music. They don't seem to repeat much. I feel like every song is new. I miss the old mix.

 

[Tolworth John]

For those of you in the know, it seems my church used to sing a mix of songs including some you might hear on contemporary Christian radio. Then that stopped. Now it's all songs I have never heard of. There are a lot of good praise and worship songs out there that you might hear on the radio but my church has quit using any of it. It got me wondering if it's a licensing issue. I am wondering if there is a big expense or just a big hassle in using CCM in worship? I could ask but don't want to be perceived as complaining about the music. It's not a complaint but a curiosity. I feel like I am forever singing new music. They don't seem to repeat much. I feel like every song is new. I miss the old mix.

All comercially produced music is copywrite so a licence is required to reproduce and sing that music.

If your music team is so self centered that a question is percieved as critism, I'd change churches.

You have every right to ask why they don't sing old favourets and to ask about what music licence they have.
If they use a screen projection for the words then that should also show their copywrite licence number.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

All comercially produced music is copywrite so a licence is required to reproduce and sing that music.

If your music team is so self centered that a question is percieved as critism, I'd change churches.

You have every right to ask why they don't sing old favourets and to ask about what music licence they have.
If they use a screen projection for the words then that should also show their copywrite licence number.

Thanks for answering. I am not saying they are self-centered. I heard from a pastor once that the #1 thing people complain about in church is the music. While the music is very important, we all have different tastes and preferences and I know my music team are all volunteers so I don't want to be perceived as one of those members who only comments on the music... However, I agree and I will ask. I am sure they won't mind.

 

[lismore]

It got me wondering if it's a licensing issue. I am wondering if there is a big expense or just a big hassle in using CCM in worship?

There is a fee to sing copyrighted songs. Not a huge fee but it has been steadily increasing over the past few years, might possibly be a burden for a smaller fellowship.

Some Christian groups do have an issue with paying to sing songs, Jesus said 'Freely you have received, freely give'. That doesn't sit well with paying for gospel truth. God Bless

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There is a fee to sing copyrighted songs. Not a huge fee but it has been steadily increasing over the past few years, might possibly be a burden for a smaller fellowship.

Some Christian groups do have an issue with paying to sing songs, Jesus said 'Freely you have received, freely give'. That doesn't sit well with paying for gospel truth. God Bless

I am sure my church can afford it. Maybe they object to having to pay.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I found two links helpful in understanding this:

Why Your Church Needs Performance Licensing - Christian Copyright Solutions : Christian Copyright Solutions

PERFORMmusic - Christian Copyright Solutions : Christian Copyright Solutions

Now I understand you need two different licenses if you stream the music from your service. For my church, the cost of the two licenses would be approximately $2300 annually. I am sure they can afford that but may not feel it's what they want to spend money on.

Thanks for the answers!

 

[lismore]

I found two links helpful in understanding this:

Why Your Church Needs Performance Licensing - Christian Copyright Solutions : Christian Copyright Solutions

PERFORMmusic - Christian Copyright Solutions : Christian Copyright Solutions

Now I understand you need two different licenses if you stream the music from your service. For my church, the cost of the two licenses would be approximately $2300 annually. I am sure they can afford that but may not feel it's what they want to spend money on.

Thanks for the answers!

The church could do a lot with $2300! God Bless

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The church could do a lot with $2300! God Bless

Agreed!

 

[Kees Boer]

Y'all can use all of my Songs for free. On top of that, you'll memorize over 250 verses from the Bible.

 

[Lulav]

If you sing the songs in the Bible you don't need to worry about any copyright.

 

[DragonFox91]

Some churches have musicians & songwriters who want to use their own music they created.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is a fee to sing copyrighted songs. Not a huge fee but it has been steadily increasing over the past few years, might possibly be a burden for a smaller fellowship.

Some Christian groups do have an issue with paying to sing songs, Jesus said 'Freely you have received, freely give'. That doesn't sit well with paying for gospel truth. God Bless

This is probably a compelling reason to turn back to the traditional hymns we grew up with. Nearer my God to Thee, Christ Our Lord Has Risen Today, etc. And the Psalms and Canticles, which are the hymns actually jn the Bible.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

This is probably a compelling reason to turn back to the traditional hymns we grew up with. Nearer my God to Thee, Christ Our Lord Has Risen Today, etc. And the Psalms and Canticles, which are the hymns actually jn the Bible.

I attended a church for a while that only sang Psalms and a few hymns and only with a piano. They had some beautifully arranged Psalms. The pastor was a bit of a music buff and arranged some of them himself. They were beautiful. The only thing I didn't like was that they had a very negative attitude against contemporary worship music (which they called "choruses"). They acted like it was from the devil. The pastor also took great pride in pushing everyone to sing in parts. Every weeknight Bible study started with half an hour of singing practice. I tried to just sing the melody but was forced to sing with the basses. They had monthly Psalm sings which were fine except they were conducted like choir practice. He would sing the song with just the tenors and then with just another part then start combining us. We didn't get to just sing and enjoy. It was obvious he took great pride in having the singing sound as professional as possible.

None of that was wrong but it was expected. If I went to a church that had a choir, I would fully support the choir but I wouldn't join it. I am not that into singing and have a throat issue that makes it impossible for me to sing for long without coughing. I have tried different remedies but nothing works well. This church had a few distinctives that they really pushed. To me, they were all optional practices and nothing commanded by Scripture but in this church, they were treated like they were. I left.

Personally, I like a mix. Some Psalms or hymns and some contemporary ones. That's just me though. I am not dogmatic about it. As my first post said, my church doesn't sing any contemporary songs that would require a license. I have never asked why. Perhaps they are opposed to it on principle. The church has plenty of money. I don't believe the expense is the issue. While I don't think the church wastes money, there are certain things they spend money on that aren't critical. They must be opposed for non-financial reasons. That's fine. I respect their decision. This is not a make-or-break issue for me. I have my preferences like most people but go with whatever the church decides on.

 

[WolfGate]

I do find it odd when I have spoken with people who are fine paying their pastors through their offerings but are philosophically opposed to paying the people who write and publish worship music. (Not in this thread but I have had that conversation before.) Regarding how much of a hassle it is, getting the license is pretty straightforward. Now if the money is worth it to a congregation is an issue for each to decide - there are other alternatives which may or may not fit with that church.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I do find it odd when I have spoken with people who are fine paying their pastors through their offerings but are philosophically opposed to paying the people who write and publish worship music. (Not in this thread but I have had that conversation before.) Regarding how much of a hassle it is, getting the license is pretty straightforward. Now if the money is worth it to a congregation is an issue for each to decide - there are other alternatives which may or may not fit with that church.

I think what it comes down to is where does it stop?

Every Christian is supposed to use their gifts for the edification of the church - this is required by God.

So do we start paying the women who cook for gatherings because they use their gifts for the church?

What about the woman always there with a shoulder to cry on or advice to be given?

Do you see what I'm getting at? How much money did the author of Amazing Grace make for his contribution to the church?

Payment for music is a wholly secular idea that has made it's way into the church - but it's not necessary.

The church has been singing songs for thousands of years now and no one made money for it until recent times, very very recent at that.

 

[WolfGate]

I think what it comes down to is where does it stop?

Every Christian is supposed to use their gifts for the edification of the church - this is required by God.

So do we start paying the women who cook for gatherings because they use their gifts for the church?

What about the woman always there with a shoulder to cry on or advice to be given?

Do you see what I'm getting at? How much money did the author of Amazing Grace make for his contribution to the church?

Payment for music is a wholly secular idea that has made it's way into the church - but it's not necessary.

The church has been singing songs for thousands of years now and no one made money for it until recent times, very very recent at that.

I agree with your question "where does it stop?". Those of us who have a profession outside of the realms of ministry often have a personal ministry as you mentioned. I have never once thought of my times as a lay elder, worship team member, deacon, nursery volunteer, etc. as anything other than a volunteer ministry. Our Pastors, however, were serving in a capacity that was both their profession and their ministry mainly because what they did for our churches required an amount of time and training that prevented the role from being filled by a volunteer who saw it as their ministry.

I have no idea how much, if any, money John Newton made from Amazing Grace but intuitively I'd say not much if anything. I know he became a pastor so he was making money from professional ministry. When I say I had discussions with people who are "philosophically opposed to paying the people who write and publish worship music", I'm not referring to them not wanting to pay for popular worship music and instead choosing to use public domain or writing their own songs. Instead they wanted to use the music written by people whose profession and ministry is writing, producing and distributing worship music, they just didn't want to pay for it - so they cast it as some kind of failing on the part of the artists that they weren't willing to freely distribute their work and go make money elsewhere. Treating their Pastors as the only people who warranted having their profession and ministry being the same is where I think they had a disconnect. Given the amount of time and money it takes to produce and distribute music widely the costs have to be covered somewhere, including to the people who God gave the talent to create.

"Where does it stop" is up to each church to decide. Some don't pay their Pastors either. Some only pay Pastors. Some add on staff Directors of various things, such as children or missions, etc. Some have counselors on staff. I know a prior church of ours would at times pay people in the nursery when it was hard to get volunteers particularly for special events. It all comes down to a balance between values and the practical considerations of making sure your congregation is getting what it needs given the resources available. As members of God's church, we can find congregations that align with our values in that area as well.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I am not a music industry insider so what I am about to say is pure speculation but to get music licensed and distributed through CD's and all the various online platforms costs money. These platforms all want their slice of the pie. Even if an artist wanted their music to be free, they would not be able to use a lot of the popular platforms to make their music available to a wider audience. I don't know what these Christian professional musicians make. I imagine a few make a lot and many others make enough to keep doing it. If they had to write and perform music in addition to a full-time job they might not be able to. I don't fault them for doing it for profit. We all have to work at something to pay our bills and if they can make money glorifying God through song then I see no problem with that.

As I understand it, technically their music is free to use but certain restrictions are imposed on them. To be used freely, it has to be used in a service and only in a service. The words can't be projected or printed. The singing can't be recorded or streamed live or on video later. Meeting those conditions it can be used without cost. Obviously, that does not fit most modern churches that project lyrics on screens and stream services online or record for later use.

I don't know that a lot of the fee churches have to pay to use the music without restrictions ends up in the pockets of the musicians. Like it or not, there is an infrastructure within the music industry and certain licensing realities that the musicians are forced to use if they want their music to be widely available. I estimated that for my church (which has over 2000 people) the annual cost would be around $2500. For a small church that might be prohibitive. For a church like mine, it would be easily affordable. They spend money on decorations and other non-essentials. Spending money on something that might aid in worship doesn't seem like a bad expenditure to me. However, each church has to decide that for itself. I know there are professional Christians who participate in worship in their home churches and I believe that is all volunteer.

I could be wrong about all of that but I don't see anything wrong with paying to use their music if that is of value to your church. I think the modern legal climate forces some of that. I don't think it is the musicians trying to line their pockets with more money but again, could be wrong.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

For those of you in the know, it seems my church used to sing a mix of songs including some you might hear on contemporary Christian radio. Then that stopped. Now it's all songs I have never heard of. There are a lot of good praise and worship songs out there that you might hear on the radio but my church has quit using any of it. It got me wondering if it's a licensing issue. I am wondering if there is a big expense or just a big hassle in using CCM in worship? I could ask but don't want to be perceived as complaining about the music. It's not a complaint but a curiosity. I feel like I am forever singing new music. They don't seem to repeat much. I feel like every song is new. I miss the old mix.

I actually think this is one of those problematic things of modern times. Can you imagine if intellectual properties and corporations existed in ancient times? e.g.- the relatives of King David, and saint Paul charging Christians and Jews to use their Psalms and Epistles in ancient churches and synagogues?

 

[WolfGate]

I actually think this is one of those problematic things of modern times. Can you imagine if intellectual properties and corporations existed in ancient times? e.g.- the relatives of King David, and saint Paul charging Christians and Jews to use their Psalms and Epistles in ancient churches and synagogues?

So Pavel, what would your solution be to this problem?

 

[The Liturgist]

I do find it odd when I have spoken with people who are fine paying their pastors through their offerings but are philosophically opposed to paying the people who write and publish worship music. (Not in this thread but I have had that conversation before.) Regarding how much of a hassle it is, getting the license is pretty straightforward. Now if the money is worth it to a congregation is an issue for each to decide - there are other alternatives which may or may not fit with that church.

Well I myself am opposed to it because the money spent on CCM licenses could be spent on hiring an organist and a professional choir director, and while there are some exquisite new works for the organ and choir by composers like T. Tertius Noble, Francis Jackson, who reposed last year at the age of 103, they are generally going to be less expensive to license or less neccessary to license due to the vast repetoire that is in the public domain.