Grammy Awards Winners Suckered By Industry Spin
February 2nd, 2010 | 
Author: 
Many artists at this year’s Grammy Awards signed a letter which the Recording Academy intends to send to Congress regarding the controversial Performance Rights Act. Daryl Friedman, a VP for the Recording Academy says: “In speaking to these talented artists, I heard three constant refrains. First, their concerns for background singers and musicians and older legacy artists who need to be fairly compensated; second, their willingness to sit down with radio to work out a solution; and third, if radio still refuses to talk, their commitment to take the fight to Washington.”
The Grammy Week January 2010 statement reads as follows:
“We, the undersigned artists, believe in the partnership between music and radio. We believe that artists (including the background singers and musicians and the great legacy artists of the past decades) deserve to be compensated when their music is used by radio. We support the Performance Rights Act because it is fair to radio and fair to artists. We encourage the radio industry to work with the music community and Congress to pass The Performance Rights Act. Together, we can create a true partnership that benefits radio, artists and musicians, and fans.”
Artists who signed the statement include Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, Tre Cool, Mike Dirnt and Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day, Stephen Stills, Kenny Aronoff, Sheryl Crow, Anthony Kiedis, Chad Smith and Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers, Phil Soussan, Jackson Browne, Don Was, Dave Matthews, Josh Groban, Travis Barker, Andrea Bocelli, Apl.de.ap, Taboo, Will.i.am and Fergie of Black Eyed Peas, Drake, Mary J Blige, Mick Fleetwood, Stevie Nicks and David Foster. Recording Academy President and CEO Neil Portnow says, “Standing right behind them are thousands of unknown and up-and-coming music makers who face the question of survival every day. In the coming decade, unless they can make a living at their craft, the quality and creativity of the music will be at risk.”
These artists have, of course, been brainwashed by the record industry spin machine. They don’t seem to understand that passage of the Performing Rights Act will result in fewer music-focused radio stations. Their assumption is that, since music-intensive radio has provided free commercials for their recorded music for the past 5 decades, stations will continue to do so. Perhaps they don’t realize that the reason radio stations became music-intensive was because music provided a mutually-beneficial symbiotic relationship for the radio and music industries: cost-effective programming for the stations and free promotion for the record labels. If the Performance Rights Act is passed, station management will decide that it’s more cost-effective to air talk programming, artists will receive less exposure and the record labels will continue to lose money.
Update: With Congress back in session, both the the National Association of Broadcasters and MusicFIRST have amped up their lobbying efforts. The NAB’s campaign is pretty innocuous, Stop The Performance Tax. MusicFIRST, however, has decided to play nasty. Here’s the logo for their site, PiggyRadio.com 
Posted in 
Tags:
I saw something about this on TV last night
I read your blog today and wanted to write to tell you how misleading your “analysis” of the Performing Rights Act has been. As a writer and as a performer with over 30 years experience, heavily involved in Advocacy and Legal issues, and as a Governor on the Board of the Recording Academy, I can tell you that you are causing harm by your total ignorance of the environment in which we function. I have been going to great effort to uncover this fundamental wrong within this great American policy, one shared only by the likes of China, Russia and Iran. Coming from the UK and having lived in all parts of Europe for many years gives me a global overview that is able to put things in better perspective than your questionable argument.
Your idea that terrestrial radio gives to music free advertising is so distorted because it is radio uses that particular aspect of their broadcasting to lure in listeners in order to sell advertising space and thereby generate revenues. In life, if you are exploiting something that I own it is absolutely my decision whether I want to be paid for it or whether I want to give it to you. Even taking your argument, what do you think gives radio the right to advertise my music, without my consent, claiming that it is ultimately for my benefit? Let me be the judge of that. Quite frankly, the PRA has very little to do with artists and more to do with performers, again something that you fail to comprehend. We would be generating a small amount of revenue for those musicians who play on artists records, those session players who receive a basic work for hire fee, and who come up with some of the most memorable musical signatures and themes uncompensated, and what possible interest do you think that they may have in the advertising and marketing of the artists’ catalogs? And what about classical musicians, who play mainly public domain works? Are you going to tell them that their performances are being played for free in order to gain advertising for Beethoven’s benefit? You wish to use something that is not yours, to capitalize on it, and are unwilling to compensate by paying the owners of that product. In legal terms we call that “stealing”.
So the radio stations pay nothing for the airwaves, they receive advertising revenues of $20B per year and they pay nothing to any performers for their programming – really an unsustainable business model, is it any wonder that radio doesn’t want to pay anyone anything after having become used to this. So lets get this clear; advertising is something that is purchased and generates revenue for radio stations; music on the radio is NOT advertising, music programming on the radio is ENTERTAINMENT – entertainment for listeners. The listeners of radio turn their radios UP to hear the music and DOWN when the advertisements are broadcast. Even advertising itself pays for music – a car commercial will pay for the right to use music to sell a car; Radio is using music to sell soap. It is radio that is getting the audience from music and not vice versa. Imagine for a moment a station forbidden to use music and only able to broadcast adverts, how many listeners do you think they will they have and how much advertising would they then be able to sell? But, if as you say, this will hurt the artists – well, if terrestrial radio stations were unable to play music, those who wish to listen to music would then have to listen to internet or satellite radio or purchased music, which would actually have more of a benefit for the music community, not to mention that T-Radio programming, so historically riddled with payola and other corruptions has hardly been an even playing field.
And what of T-Radio itself with your argument? The threat that radio will all switch to talk radio is as ridiculous as saying that you are going to phase out all music as entertainment and replace it with speech, and assumes by the same argument that you are going to find talk show hosts that are willing to not be paid for their talents… perhaps Howard Stern? No, I think that T-Radio would fade away with the same gentle crackle that ignited it so many decades ago. But that is really terrestrial radio’s problem, in this day of Satellite and Internet Radio (that do pay performance) and soon to come streaming radio, maybe the days of terrestrial radio with their antiquated paradigm are indeed truly over – It is time for us to take back the rights to our intellectual property and to determine the exact and fair compensation for its use.
And politically – do you think that it is really fair that due to reciprocity, no other countries will pay our performers for their foreign performances resulting in a loss to the USA of significant taxable income, in excess of seven figures per annum, that money being used in turn by those countries to fund their music education programs, while we have such a shortage of funding for the arts in our schools.
And you Sir? What do you do? You specialize in voice-overs. Do you think that your voice-over talent should be used for free? What vested interest do you have to deny a performer his right to a day’s compensation for a days work? Who lobbied and bought you in this argument?
No Sir, in reality radio needs music to survive and as such performers are willing to negotiate a relatively small (and it IS small) and reasonable fee for the use of such programming through the Performance Rights Act which will pass and which will enable radio to recognize the value of music to them and to their revenues. This unjust cause has been going on too long and is now starting to be better understood by all of the communities involved, and you are showing yourself to be slave to the ignorance that has resulted in this despicable and unfair situation. I would encourage T-Radio and the NAB to take full advantage of this opportunity to resolve this as soon as possible.
Please feel free to publish this in its entirety on your blog.
Sincerely,
Phil Soussan
I appreciate your feedback, Phil and also your concern for the musicians involved.
Of course, the point I’m making in my blog is that the record industry which is in financial trouble because its business model hasn’t evolved to reflect today’s marketplace has spun the story to make radio the villain. The radio industry, on the other hand, has its own financial problems and can ill-afford the financial burden that the labels are trying to impose on it with the Performance Rights Act.
My sense is that you’re under the impression that radio’s only option is music-based programming. It’s not. Radio, encouraged by the record industry, embraced music-intensive programming because it provided inexpensive programming. The music industry flourished and became a multi-billion dollar business because of the free promotion it received from airplay. It was a mutually-beneficial symbiotic relationship. If the cost of music programming becomes less cost-effective, stations will switch to other alternatives.
Based on the millions of dollars that labels have spent over the decades to influence radio programming through promotions, its obvious that they believed there was a financial benefit to the investment. I earned my living as a music radio programmer for many years and the underlying message from label representatives that on-air spins equaled profits for the record labels was constant . It’s also apparent that free on-air exposure and advocacy for the artists helped to build those artist’s brands, sell their concert tickets and their branded merchandise.
You indicate that radio unfairly gets to play music for free but it should be pointed out that stations already pay for the right to play music in the form of BMI, ASCAP and SESAC fees. Each station pays a high percentage of its gross annual revenues to those organizations.
My personal opinion is that if the Performance Rights Act is passed radio stations should start charging labels for airplay. After all, the air time does have value as represented by the station’s commercial rate card. Consequently, a three minute song would be charged a multiple of the station’s 60 second unit rate. Stations might also consider negotiating a deal to earn a percentage of music sold in within the zip codes where the station is dominant . It’s not unfeasible that a formula could be worked using Soundscan, Mediabase and Arbitron information.
However, based on my experience in the radio industry, if Congress passes the PRA I wouldn’t be surprised if most music-based radio stations moved away from music programming altogether.
R.E. “Buzz” Brindle
Hi Buzz:
As the person who you report “suckered” the GRAMMY winners into signing, let me make a couple of comments (without repeating the points made in the excellent analysis of Phil Soussan above).
First, let’s disabuse the notion of the “brainwashed” artist. Musicians and artists are incredibly knowledgeable about their business. Each person I spoke to had an excellent understanding of the legislation in play, and many had been following the debate for more than a year. They understand that no other business in America is allowed to use another’s work without permission or compensation, except terrestrial radio. It’s not about the money; it’s about the right. They’re not brainwashed or suckered. They just know when something is unfair.
Second, to test your theory that radio will leave the music format for talk, we only need to look at the broadcast marketplace today. The majority of satellite radio stations (which all pay artist royalties) play music. Internet radio, most of which is advertiser supported like terrestrial, is also primarily playing music and paying the artists. When the bill passes, most AM/FM stations will pay (depending on revenue) $500, $1000, or $5000 PER YEAR. Imagine finding on-air talent that will work for so little. Music will remain the bargain content for radio and therefore radio will continue to use it to attract listeners.
I’ll close by restating the final line of the petition: “Together, we can create a true partnership that benefits radio, artists and musicians, and fans.” We believe we can achieve a partnership that is fair to both sides, but only if we get in a room and work out the details. To date, the NAB has resisted any dialogue with the artists’ representatives. I hope that will change.
Daryl Friedman
VP/Advocacy & Government Relations
The Recording Academy
Washington, DC
There are those of us who are skeptics, Daryl. If I may quote my friend, Jim Carnegie from the Radio Business Report:
“Do the math – If a famous singer uses 10 background musicians and singers, and earns a dollar off PRA, the record company gets 50 cents, the famous musician gets 45 cents and the others each get one half of a cent. All you hear about from the recording companies is their great concern for these unknown faceless musicians – until it comes time to write them a check, when the musicians find out exactly how unknown and faceless the recording industry thinks they are.
Ironically, if PRA is enacted, it will make it even harder for the up-and-coming to break through. Stations, paying to play each and every song, will not want to spend money on an experiment from some unknown – they’re going to stick with the tried and true.
PRA will simply chase new talent to new platforms on the internet. It will be just one more item on the long list of self-inflicted wounds the recording industry is compiling.”
And it’s my understanding that the annual rates that music stations in the top 100 markets will pay under the Performance Rights Act will be much steeper than those you cite.
Regards,
Buzz Brindle
I read the post on your website from Phil Soussan, one of NARAS’ Governors on the Board of the Recording Academy and thought I’d reply to his comments since in my opinion, it’s Mr. Soussan that is “misleading” in his analysis, not you.
First: Mr. Soussan accuses you of “total ignorance” while telling us he comes from the “U.K. and having lived in all parts of Europe for many years gives me a global overview that is able to put things in better perspective than your questionable argument.” Perhaps Mr. Soussan is ignorant in this regard: radio in the U.K. and Europe was and is in most cases government sanctioned and controlled. While he was living with the BBC, here in America we had thousands of radio stations owned by small and large companies that for decades have played the music that labels willingly gave them and these stations played the biggest part in exposing it to the masses and generating huge returns for record labels and their artists. Radio stations have been paying perfomance fees to ASCAP, BMI, etc. (who collect for the composers) for decades as well. So they aren’t getting away with playing “free” music. That’s a myth.
From one source: “These deals provide for set yearly fees to be paid to ASCAP and BMI by the radio industry as a whole (over $230,000,000 to each organization this year). The fees are divided among all broadcast stations based on formulas set out in the agreements. The agreed upon fee grew in each year of the agreement (from about 150 million dollars in 2001 to the current levels). These agreements were entered into in an economic climate where it was thought that radio revenues would continue to grow, and broadcasters did not want to cut the PROs in for a “piece of the action”, i.e. a percentage of the revenue that they make (which was the formula before the current deals). But, as radio revenue has not continued to climb, but has in fact fallen in recent years, the fixed industry fee has caused the ASCAP and BMI fees to constitute far higher percentages of radio revenue than ever before. At the same time, ASCAP and BMI and the composers that they represent have become accustomed to receiving an established, growing pot of money each year.” (Source: http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/tags/how-much-does-radio-pay-compos/ )
So, Mr. Soussan’s belief that radio is getting away by playing music “free” is simply WRONG.
For more than 80 years here in the United States, radio has exposed listeners to new music and artists. The airplay of music, which reaches hundreds of millions of listeners each week, has helped an untold number of artists increase their visibility and popularity, sell more records, generate more performance royalties, sell concert tickets, CDs, music downloads and more.
Second: Mr. Soussan almost makes it sound like a crime that radio sells advertising based on the revenues it generates from its various music formats. Perhaps Mr.Soussan should realize that radio is a business and just like any other it has to make a profit to survive. As an ex-promotion executive at two major labels with over 30 years experience in the industry, I don’t ever remember a single time when any artist or label executive felt that radio was “exploiting” the music we gave them. In fact, every label in the business was more than happy to give radio our music in hopes they would play it, and we would sell it. I also don’t remember one single artist ever complaining when they received their ASCAP and BMI royalty checks either. They were thrilled, and only hoped they could continue to receive more radio play to generate more of those checks.
Whether Mr. Soussan is aware of what is happening right now in the radio industry, and if he is, he’s more “ignorant” in his argument for the Performance Tax. Right now, major radio corporations are bankrupt and their stocks are selling for pennies on the dollar. Hundreds of radio people are out of work, and things aren’t getting better. If Mr. Soussan believes that any new taxes on radio will simply be absorbed into their overhead, he’s ill-educated in business 101. Higher taxes on any business always result in the following: cutting personnel further to reduce overhead, or increasing prices to your customers. Right now, radio is in NO position to increase its ad rates because new media is taking ad dollars away from terrestrial radio. (With the exception of monster talk shows like Limbaugh, etc.)
The immediate result of any new tax on radio will be their limiting the amount of new music exposed. If they have to pay more to play music, does he think they will be so quick to risk their dollars by giving more new artists a shot on the air? New music is always the hardest to get on the radio because playing the hits is what drives revenues and ratings. But new taxes might even result in less play on the hits if radio cannot generate the revenues to offset the new taxes.
Yes, Mr. Soussan is right, music radio needs music to survive. But how much they play, and much they expose new music will be a whole lot different if radio has to pay more to play it. If he thinks otherwise, he’s ill-informed about that subject and I suggest he (and those who think like him) attend an NAB conference and hear what broadcast owners, station mangers, and programmers have to say. If he disagrees with them so fervently, he should at least listen to what they have to say to add credible foundation to his argument.
TAB (Texas Association of Broadcasters) president Ann Arnold said last year to a congressional delegation, ““It’s clear that the Performance Tax would take anywhere from eight to 20 percent of a station’s revenue and that half of that plunder will go directly overseas to the labels’ front offices, with little reaching performers’ pockets. A Performance Tax will wreak havoc, forcing some stations to go dark, others to abandon music formats altogether in favor of all-talk, and force greater homogenization of playlists. How is any of that good for constituents who want a variety of programming from their local radio stations or, for that matter, the performers?”
It’s easy to say a Performance Tax is justifiable in these most challenging of economic times. But, if Mr. Soussan thinks that all new artists who are hoping for radio play one day are on his side, he should ask them whether they would be happy with the system as it is, and has been since day on: the same system that allowed the record industry to explode in the 50’s, 60’s, 70′, and 80’s and at the same time, generated millions in royalties (both from performance fees and mechanicals from record sales) for artists; or a new system whereby radio limits the chances it takes to expose new music, and in fact lessens music exposure in relation to its operating expenses.
Again, if Mr. Soussan thinks that won’t happen, I suggest he immediately do the homework about radio’s current economic state of affairs.
Perhaps when radio stocks are in those lofty ranges they once were, and many chains emerge from bankruptcy and start generating millions again in revenues, Mr. Soussan can make his argument again.
Until that time, artists who support the Performance Tax should be careful of what they are wishing for.
Dear Mr Brindle,
It seems that you make about 4 points in your response that I would care to address, as these have been fairly common responses.
The proposed Performance Rights Act (the PRA) is not a product of the Record Industry, as you say, that is now trying to find alternative ways to obtain compensation. This is about musicians and performers personally and not about faceless corporations. The PRA is for the “little guy”, the session player, the classical viola player and the guy called in to play a horn part on an album for a menial session fee of about $100 per hour, and most are lucky to work 4 or 5 hours a week.. While it is true that the modern distributing marketplace is evolving and changing, our industry is seeking to look forward and not backward. It is essential that the radio industry get with the times and stop behaving like the antiquated industry of yesterday – a time when radio and record companies benefitted from payola, influenced programming and other corruptions at the expense of the artists. In order for the industry to move forward there must be parity across the board for all distributors of music product. Everyone pays for use of music, film and TV programming except for terrestrial radio. All media stations have economic problems as do the rest of the world, so why should our musicians be burdened in trying to support radio in its plea of poverty? As most independent artists knew only too well, the chances of having got music on the air without the promotional relationships and secret deals with programmers was nigh on impossible – I do not think that there would be much sympathy there. The fact remains – anyone using music or other programming to draw in listeners or viewers in order to sell advertising space needs to pay for it, period. To be candid, the priority of radio has never been to help musicians with advertising, and radio has been making money hand over fist with very little expense, other than capital expense for many decades.
The second point, that radio has programming choices is well appreciated, but of no interest to musicians. You have to do what you have to do; but if you want to provide your listeners with music, you are going to have to pay some fair usage for it. It is not of our concern if you want to switch to talk radio, or any other radio, when we have plenty of outlets that ARE willing acknowledge the value of music, that ARE willing to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement and ARE happy to compensate performance owners for their work.
As you say, based on the millions of dollars that labels had spent with programmers, payments that were legally questionable, it was only obvious that each label may have had their own interests at heart in trying to force the hand of advertising for their particular product, and those profits that you mention seldom trickled down to the hands of the artists and certainly never to the musicians. T-Radio has been very lucky all this time. While on-air spins may have equaled profits for the labels, on-air spins also equaled huge advertising profits for the stations. How many times have you wanted musicians to come and make guest appearances during your shows to bring in more listeners and more advertising dollars?
To address for a moment the issue of paying Perfomance Royalties; (these differing from the proposed PRA Royalties) that are collected by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, these are the monies collected for the broadcast rights for the owners of the COMPOSITIONS and are paid to the owners of those copyrights. To explain to your readers – if I record a version of the Beatles’ “Yesterday” and it gets played on the radio, that money collected goes to the writers of the song, in the case of the Beatles it would be John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Not one cent goes to me, nor to my musicians, my producer nor to any person that may own or have paid for any part of the recording process. That is a bit like broadcasting a movie, collecting some monies for the author of the book, but refusing any compensation for the entire production of the movie, claiming that the movie with its actors, photographer, producers, director, technicians and post-production professionals are benefiting by getting a free “shout out”.
Incidentally, why don’t we provide some accurate payment details to illustrate how small these fees are that radio pays actually are in comparison to the revenues received by Radio. In fact US Terrestrial Radio, pays less than half what is paid in the UK and pretty much elsewhere in Europe. In Europe this is IN ADDITION to the monies that are collected for PRA.
And so what are we talking about for PRA? If a radio station makes less than $2,000,000.00 dollars per annum, that PRA payment would be capped at $5,000 per year! All they would have to do would be to play one song less a year and run 3 more ads in its place to pay for it! Really, with these factual numbers it is hard to say that musicians are trying to kill radio! For radio stations making more than $2M p.a. the sum would be a negotiated factor based upon accounted Free Cash Flow – ie the money that can be extracted from a company at the end of the fiscal year after all obligations have been paid, and so again, this would not hurt radio.
As for your last point, I sort of agree with your observation; record labels HAVE been paying for airtime! – under that table maybe, but they have certainly paid plenty of money to radio, who have made money on both sides of the deal. Maybe radio needs to come clean and differentiate between what is aired for the purposes of selling airtime and what is aired in order to attract listeners, and to stop trying to to claim sole credit for creating the music industry. Musicians create the industry, without musicians there is no music, no music radio, no music business, no music lawyers, no accountants, no programmers, gigs, concerts or T-shirts. All of those mentioned can be removed, but I can still play a guitar or sing a song to someone and the music remains. There was music for thousands of years before radio came along and there will be music at the last moment of life on earth. Radio did not create music – radio exploited music to great gains. Radio has come and radio may go, or be replaced, but this tired business model is now running out of steam in the face of so many new technologies; The T-Radio industry has lost its hold on the exclusive conduit of music into people’s homes and workplaces, and they know it – less and less people are listening to T-Radio.
The last point you mention just serves to illustrate the arrogance and greed that the Radio industry has always been associated with. Ownership of the sales of musicians’ rights? Maybe you should be better off seeking percentages of all the cars sold through your adverts in your areas.
On second thoughts, maybe it would be better for T-Radio to pursue non-musical programming; with Satellite, Internet and Streaming on demand, and 20,000 songs in my iPod I think I can find the music that I wish to listen to, and not have to endure all those mindless and endless commercials every 3 minutes. I don’t know too many kids these days that admit to listening to terrestrial radio on those earbuds!
So, just who’s business model is really failing to evolve?
Phil Soussan
By the way Mr Brindle,
While some previous commenter is focusing on factual accuracy, the PRA is not a tax; a tax is something collected by the Government, it is a fee. Can we please stop referring to it as a tax?
PS
Buzz –
Your post has sparked a lively debate. As spokesperson for the musicFIRST Coalition, I want to add a few comments.
First, a big AMEN to the comments posted by musician Phil Soussan and Daryl Friedman from The Recording Academy. Phil and Daryl know how passionately artists and musicians feel about this issue – as should everyone who believes that people should be paid for their work. Artists and musicians have been fighting for a fair performance right since the early days of radio. Today, we are closer than ever before to winning this fight.
Second, let’s set the record straight about how much AM and FM music radio stations would pay in performance royalties. Under the provisions of bills approved by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, 75 percent of music stations will pay $5,000 a year or less to clear the performance rights for all the music they use. Some could pay as little as $100 a year. For the remaining 25 percent of stations the royalty rate could be set through negotiations between the radio industry and the music community or, if they can not reach an agreement, by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board. The promotional value of radio would be taken into account in setting the rate as it has been for satellite radio, internet radio and cable television music channels. And 90 percent of music radio stations would not begin to make royalty payments until three years after the Performance Rights Act is signed into law.
Finally, radio broadcasters will not switch to talk formats when the Performance Rights Act is signed into law. Just look at what radio stations around the country are doing with their second and third HD channels – they are playing more music. It is what listeners want to hear. And, if they went to a talk format they would actually have to pay for their content – as they should.
The issue is one of basic fairness. AM and FM music radio stations earn billions every year in ad revenue without compensating the artists, musicians and rights holders who bring music to life and listeners’ ears to the radio dial because of a loophole in the law. It is time to close the loophole because everyone deserves to be paid for their work.
Open & lively discussion is what it’s all about, Marty.
Dear Mr Brindle,
Yes a lively discussion indeed. I am grate for Marty Machowsky’s comment that sheds some light on the typical fees that we may be talking about as it does put things into perspective.
I wanted to share a couple of brief points that readers may not be aware of. With a common idea that the PRA has been a product of the record labels, these days, and with the consolidation that has occurred, many artists are in fact their own record labels; but it still remains that whomever is the label is typically a part owner of the recording of the piece and it is these owners precisely that are seeking some return for the use of their product; it is as simple as that. Financing and making recordings is also a legitimate business.
No one will deny, for one minute, that music radio and the music industry have a very good synergistic business together, as does music with other industries, and so the music industry is not trying to kill the radio industry. Yes, radio has a choice of what to broadcast, but if they feel that they are going to attract the greatest audience, and therefore greatest returns with music, then music should be available to them as an option. It is simply a matter of coming up with a compensation that is fair to both sides, a deal that is acceptable and that provides lucrative opportunities on both sides of the equation.
I do get really passionate when people try to demonize the music industry because this is quite frankly not true. Musicians and our industry, be it corporate or independent are, by the vast majority are a good bunch of people who care about others. We are philanthropic, compassionate and considerate. We think across racial and international borders and are the first to help in a moment of need. What other business prides itself on the sheer volume of benefits and fund raisers that they conduct; be it for a fellow musician struck down with misfortune, or another non-musician that through illness has tugged at the heart-strings of our community or an individual whose family has been left with debt after the passing of a loved one. The minute that there are world tragedies, is is the menial musician that tries to participate in benefits to raise money. The work done by MusicCares and the Grammys attests to this philosophy. This may come as a shocker but I have even done a benefit for a radio station -KMET back in the late 80’s. But lurking behind the well meaning smile and song is very often a musical artist who has severe financial problems of their own; how often do you see the musician loading their guitar into a beat up old car, counting pennies for gas, behind on rent or bills, without health care, no pension and the glimmer of hope that keeps it alive; “…if I can make it through just one month more, maybe I will be able to see some change”
Mr Steve Meyer suggests that we come to an NAB conference to hear the hardship on the part of the Radio industry, with their concerns about reduced public stock multiples and the effects on their shareholders in an economically declining environment; I would suggest that Mr Meyer spend a few evenings at his local music clubs and establishments behind the scenes and see what we have to go through in terms of some real hardship and problems that we experience trying to put food on the table. My early years I had to light a small pile of coal to keep warm, I had to decide each day between a burger or a pack of cigarettes as my only purchase (a vile habit now happily long gone). Maybe he could be impressed by the passion that we must have for what we do.
What is being proposed here is something that has been being contested for about a hundred years, it is not something new that someone has come up with quite recently, and is an unjust that only exists in our country. We are asking that the NAB sit down with the MusicFIRST Coalition and be prepared to do what Internet and Satellite radio have determined is fair, and what is universally accepted in every other civilized country in the world, excepting as mentioned before, the rogue Intellectual Property wildernesses of China and Russia, and sadly of course, the US of A.
Let’s try to change this together, we are not demons, neither are the majority of people in the radio industry – we both have much to benefit from this relationship. I truly hope that we can inspire some co-operation.
Phil Soussan
As I’ve posted on your blog already…artists that support this should be very wary of what they wish for…it is not going to help get new music exposed one bit
Former radio programmer and on-air personality, Chuck (Taylor) Garabedian responds:
“Your blog comment is dead on. Plans are in place in many companies to drop music during non-revenue generating dayparts and drop music from some stations altogether! Believe it!”
Meanwhile…
In his Ross-On-Radio blog, Sean Ross writes about Richard “Ricky the K” Kaufman: “ a former medium-market station owner who wanted to recreate the sound of WABC New York in the ‘60s….. “Ricky the K’s Solid Gold Time Machine” became …, for many years, a longer-running-than-most subscription service on the Internet. Kaufman, who says he was making a living through his program, recently shut it down… nonetheless because of the changes in the royalties structure for Internet radio.”
Good! We know what the royalties really cost – If you can’t make money in your business playing music, then don’t. Please play something else, just respect our property rights.
Musicians, unlike this area of the radio industry, are not looking for charity work.
Don’t worry, you will do just fine.
PS
Jerry Del Colliano’s blog today about the RIAA makes a couple of points which are relevant to this on-going conversation:
“Don’t try to tax radio stations. Go to St. Patrick’s Cathedral and get on your knees and pray that the radio industry survives in some form or another. It is in your best interest.
Loosen the grip on webcasters and podcasters regarding royalty fees – again, the more music is shared, the more consumers buy. The only people who don’t know this are record execs probably because they don’t get out of courtrooms long enough to observe consumer behavior or read research.”
You can read Jerry’s blog in full at http://insidemusicmedia.blogspot.com/
Whit Adamson, President of the Tennessee Association of Broadcasters says this about the Performance Rights Act:.
“For over 80 years, radio broadcasters have had a mutually beneficial relationship: free radio airplay of music by over-the-air broadcasters, which in turn promotes record labels and artists and generates millions of dollars in music, hospitality, small-business and merchandise sales…Yet against this backdrop, the big record labels have embarked on a crusade that could cripple the financial viability of many free and local radio stations or even new artists.
In an unprecedented campaign due to their broken digital recording and Internet business model, the Recording Industry Association of America is bankrolling a lobbying initiative in Congress that would change copyright law and require radio stations to pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually to RIAA member companies that are based outside the U.S…The free publicity Nashville has enjoyed over the years would change if this radio fee was to become law. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the radio business during the economic down-turn; a new tax would force broadcasters to lay off thousands more. This kind of revenue loss would force many radio stations to cut back on public service and charitable activities in the communities we serve. Some radio stations that now play music will simply switch to an all-talk format — thereby avoiding the new RIAA fee. How would that benefit Nashville’s songwriters and the artists?
For the sake of our region and the future of music, we should not risk the viability of free and local radio stations that have been such a huge economic engine for Nashville over the decades.”
Anyone that believes radio is “exposing new artists” has got to be joking. Radio ONLY exposes ARTISTS THAT ARE BACKED BY MAJOR LABELS. And the odds of this occurring are like getting struck by lightning. And even if it DOES occur, the label and radio rape you. We ALL KNOW at this stage of the game that middlemen are losing their leverage. I record on my own (production) and distribute on my own (unlimited copying of files). The only thing you guys can STILL DO IS ACT AS COCKBLOCKING GATEKEEPERS.
The whole thing should be reformed. There needs to be a general tax pool (an actual tax, like the way we pay for the fire department and hospitals) and then simply devise a voting system based on local/regional/national/international. I’m thinking 20/20/50/10.
I understand that unemployment is hitting radio..but this is because unemployment is going to go up EVERYWHERE because the private sector cannot solve our problems because not everything can be monetized..and is not profitable.
Anyways i’ll leave it at that.
That’s my track.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhn1dNLdDI
Oh.. and who is “buying” music now? Music doesn’t even make any sense in a “market”. There is no real market for music. It’s all charity donations. If people WANT it for free, they can get it. It’s free for all intents and purposes until somebody devises a better system.
In his InsideMusicMedia blog, Jerry Del Colliano proposes the following:
“Record labels have to pay radio stations and their present or past owners (or their estates) for all the free publicity they derived by getting so much airplay focused on so few records that the repetition alone harmed the radio industry”
”A percentage of every piece of product – single or album – that radio stations helped the labels sell.” And…” Make it retroactive to 1945.”
You can read Jerry’s full blog at http://bit.ly/JudgeJerry
Jim Carnegie observes in his Radio Business Report:
“PRA will simply chase music off the air. Those stations that do bite the bullet and pay for the privilege of running what is essentially a three-minute advertisement for the artist will choose what they buy very, very carefully.”
http://www.RBR.com
More from Radio Business Report’s Jim Cargnegie:
“We’d be careful about throwing the word pig around. The ugly fact about PRA is that it not only refuses to acknowledge radio’s role in promoting music, it takes money from radio and divvies it up between the haves of the music world, leaving the rank and file musicians to divide up the crumbs.
We’ll do the math for you again. A radio station plays a song – basically a three minute commercial for the song, its label and its performer – and the label and headliner not only want the air time for free, they want cash on top of the promotional benefit they are getting.
Once they have the cash, here’s what they do. Let’s say the song has a headline singer, three background singers, a piano player, a guitar player, a bass player, three horn players and a drummer. For every dollar radio pays, the label, which “performs” nothing, gets 50 cents. The headliner gets 45 cents.
Meanwhile, the three background singers, the piano player, the guitar player, the bass player, the three horn players and the drummer will split a nickel, so that in the end each will rake in the astonishing sum of one half of a cent.
When the recording industry talks about the justice of its cause, it almost always wraps itself around the poor starving musicians struggling to make a living. But here we see exactly what the industry thinks of them – they are great for a PR campaign, but not so important when it comes time to divide up the booty.
Pigs, indeed.”
You can read Jim’s daily observations at http://www.RBR.com
yeah, no love for the labels either. But you have to admit, the U.S. business control of radio has made it so shitty. All of the profits radio makes are on the back of using FREE airwaves given to them by the people. Artists need to make the BULK of revenue. Middlemen need to be necessary conduits..not institutional layer on top of institutional layer.
As we have said many times before – the artist is very often their own independent label and it is then up to them to distribute some participation to the owners of the recordings. That may include producers and engineers. We are not doing this for labels, and with all due respect, I think that the radio industry should stay out of our affairs – it is of no concern to them how this money is to be divided, and that is certainly not a reason to justify their refusal to pay for product.
As far as radio wanting compensation for the “free” publicity that they have given us, I would put forward that the radio industry would have been NOTHING without music. They have garnered billions of dollars on our backs. Without music there would have been nothing but drama shows (free, I am sure), news and discussions. Really – try to convince me that the billions of American teens through the decades listened to radio for the friggin news! (Which is already totally politically biased).
Get real radio – you are a dying industry – go ahead and pull your music as you wish to keep threatening – go on, throw all your toys out of the crib!
Wonder what all your valuable DJs will do for a living next?