Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Seeks Payola Inquiry
An Anonymous Coward writes "The big media story of the day seems to be that the RIAA, artists, and others in the industry are complaining that there are monopolies (such as Clear Channel) forming in the radio broadcast industry. The group is stating that the practice of "independent promotion" is really a new form of payola and that it is hitting the artists' bottom line directly." Another submitter writes in with another story on the subject and the industry's Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio.
When monopolies hate other monopolies and complain about them. "Unfair business practices!" they cry, while not realizing the irony of it all.
not paying royalities in exchange for airplay.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
What? So now the RIAA actually *cares* about the artists?
Now I'm confused.
Hmmmmm.... RIAA or Clear Channel? Sometimes there just isn't a white hat in sight.
I think the real shame about all of this is that everyone's making money off someone else's talent. I mean, I'd be willing to bet that with very few exceptions, it's the actual artists who profit the least from all these wonderful arrangements.
Another monopoly is threatening our monopoly! Government, please help us maintain our monopoly!
The music industry opposes the "payola" that they willingly pay to get the music they want to be on the radio on the radio. Why don't they all just stop paying. Then the radio stations will need another method to decide what is played.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
The mafia today complained that local drug dealers are "totally ruining the neighborhood with all their shooting and stuff."
To quote a longtime friend: "Pot. Kettle. Bang!"
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
A brief history of the original 1950s payola scandal is here. Another interesting payola scandal that I don't think ever went anywhere is that Salon ran an article accusing the US government of payola for having Hollywood run anti-drug plots...
id rather see the local band at the bar who has never been signed, now ever will be! if you were good, you wouldnt need to make your money off of radio promotion, youd promote your self nofx/grateful dead/phish... and make money by winning your fans at tours, by being a good show.
but enough of my rant, music (read radio) sucks today anyways!
I want 2D games back.
I know that in the last 10 years or so in my area, concert tickets have gone from ~$25 per ticket to $50 (Last time Niel Young came to town... same price for Roger Waters).
Seems steep to me... maybe they just know that fans will pay it.
It's probably worth noting that the Music Industry slime-wads aren't actually worried about the corruption of the play lists that payola causes.
From the article:
Deregulation of the radio business and rampant practices that skirt 40-year-old anti-payola laws stifle competition, drive up music promotional costs and make it harder for new artists to gain attention, the artists and record labels said in a joint statement addressed to the federal regulators and Congress.
That's right, it's all about the mighty $.
Why buy into a game you already own?
That's why I usually only listen to NPR or CDs while I'm in my car. I can't stand the horribly limited playlists of the radio stations any more.
Not to mention the 20+ minutes of ads (not including the DJ's yapping away) in every hour of music.
And from what I've heard, Clear Channel can be a rough company to work for. The corp HQ selects the playlists and the DJ doesn't get to choose very many songs to play, unless they're working after 9:30 or 10:00 pm (and who's listening then anyways?)
When I'm at work, I listen to Wolf FM. They've got some ads, but the ratio of music to ads is very high.
Well, of course ClearChannel follows "what listeners want to hear". They TELL them what they want to hear. THEY make the play lists. Absoultely absurd response on the part of CC.
CC: "These are not the bands you are looking for"
PUB: "These are not the bands I am looking for"
CC: "You will listen to our drivel and enjoy it"
PUB: "I will listen to your drivel and enjoy it"
Wow, now the RIAA is bitching about something else, how many suits are they involved in now? And not to mention that this is somewhat redundant considering that they are the ones who created the current market state, and the situation that they're whining about. Would somebody please put a sock in it?
Record companies say they're being forced to pay independent promoters, so-called indies. The indies then pay the radio stations, buying access to get the songs heard. And it's all legal.
This is payola, with a middleman. Why did it take so many years to figure out that the end result is an illegal practice (payola), even though the means isn't?
And the end result are playlists so limited, even on "mix" or "variety" stations, that in an average workday (9AM-5PM), I can hear several songs played twice or thrice.
I am the evil aardvark!
Boo hoo. They fought for deregulation and now they're feeling the bite in a purportedly free market of monopolies. Fuck them all. They made their bed, now sleep in it.
Am I supposed to lose sleep knowing that they've gotta pay their indies $10K/song/station to get an add because the stations are all owned by the same conglomerate when the record labels have joined into a conglomerate and engaged in price fixing?
I don't listen to radio (except for the independent, supersuave WFMU) and I can't wait until inevitability catches up with the RIAA.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Oh, so the industry that is effectively controlled by five companies is saying the radio industry is too concentrated?
Oh, boo hoo. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
It sounds like what might happen in the next few years is that companies like Clear Channel will do what they say they don't and only start playing the artists that they have on tour or promote.
You'll only hear certain artists on stations that are owned by the company that promotes their label or tour.
It'll kinda be like movie theaters where certain movies are only carried by Regal, or General Cinema, etc.
Remind me why big media companies are a good thing again?
The RIAA is complaning monopolistic practices costing them more money. Talk of the pot calling the kettle black.
Fight Spammers!
With the wings, and the gnashing of teeth, oh flavin!
(Burning karma like it's nobody's business!)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
All this negativity can not be good for anyone.
Because CD sales hardly give them a dime anymore. If they would break off from RIAA run labels and sell their music online in MP3 format (.50 cents/song) they would make a lot more money and maybe could ease off concert prices a bit.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Takes one to know one, doesn't it?
[does happy dance]
"It is blatantly absurd that they attempt to hold the radio industry accountable for the creation or execution of business practices that they control," [Clear Channel spokesperson] Taylor said. "The money comes from them."
The recording industry is complaining that the recording industry is paying to have certain songs played on the radio. They why don't they just stop paying?
Of course, all the labels will have to agree to do this, since if all but one stops, and this payola really works, that one label will have tons of airplay.
Oh, Woe is me! I had to had to steal yet more money from the artists I supposedly represent to cover the costs of promotion. Since I'm only making 1400% profit instead of 1500%, I have to settle for a 911 instead of that Ferrari!
Tired of payola? Pissed off by the RIAA? Think our elected officials are owned by Hollywood? Then you need..... PIRATE RADIO! Irreverant, illegal, apolitical, and hard to find. Broadcast schedule? What's that? Lots of fun, tho, and guaranteed to pick up the corners of your mouth.
/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Pirate_Radio
There is a reason that my friends and I call MTV and VH1 the "Shiny Things Network".
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
The RIAA is upset that large *opolies are forming that will have the economic clout to extort money for the privelege of promoting music.
,with few excetions, effectively own everything an artist does.
The RIAA is upset that individuals are bypassing their *opoly and stealing music instead of paying the outrageous profit margins on CD's
The RIAA is upset that artists are protesting the RIAA *opoly control of artists contracts, which allows the RIAA members to
The RIAA is upset that there are technological means by which people can excercise fair use rights and make copies of music for which no royalty has been paid.
When I was a kid, we'd call such a crybaby.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I am shocked yes shocked that the RIAA has discovered that monoploies not only exists but that a monopoly can damage a market and hurt consumers! hand them a mirror --- pleeeeze -- so they can see one up close.
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
Seriously, someone should investigate their buying of senators and legistlators over the past 20 years. I'd bet they put organized crime to shame when it comes to greasing palms.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
to Clear Channel Stations..which is almost every station in the country it seems.
Here's a playlist to die for right now.... (Find a Clear Channel Station playing Josh Rouse or Pedro the Lion..)
It's from WOXY 97X in Oxford Ohio. You knew them best from the movie Rainman. It's the "97X - BAM the future of Rock and Roll" that he keeps saying over and over.
Best part is they stream in a nice comparatively meaty 48K MP3 stream.
Independent radio at it's finest with no cock rock.
This is one monopoly bitching about another monopoly.
This would be like Microsoft bitching about Dell (if Dell had a monopoly on distribution) because Dell says, "People want Win98SE, so that is what we give them." and Microsoft wimpering, "But we have a monopoly too, and we want people to lock-in to XP and upgrades."
The real fact is people want the brain-dead DJ's to shut up, limit the commercials to a couple per hour, and play tunes they want to hear.
What if Kathy Lee Gifford got a monopoly on clothing and the only option for women was to buy her clothes? Now there's some shit hitting the fan...
Abort, Retry, Fail?
word
Not to side with the RIAA (shudder), but Clear Channel is a pretty ugly company. You probably listen to them now and don't even know it. There's a station list available at http://www.cjr.org/owners/clearchannel.asp
Josh Woodward
To pop a Cap in RIAA and get it over with. In some countries, RIAA might be considered organized crime or even music terrorists.
I haven't used this obsolete "radio" technology that you refer to, in many years. I don't think I even know anyone who does. A radio monopoly is about as threatening to the public as a buggywhip monopoly.
The RIAA complaining about a monopoly. Heh, that just makes my day.
You really have to marvel at the arrogance of these people. They truly feel they can do whatever they want without consequence. Yeah I know, 50 years of history proves they have been able to so far, but even the dumbest dog will eventually attack it's master if it's beaten enough.
Does anyone else think this is crazy?!
The record companies have been paying (FM) Radio stations to play their music, but want Internet Ratio stations to pay them for licensing!!!???!!!
My favourite quote from a radio spokesman:
"He says the indie pays for the right to consult with stations' program directors about which songs are chosen to be played. But Liggins insists that the indies do not dictate which records get on the air."
I guess that's completely different from companies "donating" campaign contributions for the right to "consult" with politicians about which laws to pass (while of course not dictating what laws get on the books). Hopefully the government will legislate against this dastardly music payola, as suggested by their friendly RIAA lobbyist.
Clear Channel, MTV & others love to play artists that can dish out wads of cash through independent promoters, which is a very small percentage of artists out there.
To the consumer, this means that we can listen to the homogenized sludge on the radio and enjoy it because the broadcasting monopolies never play anything better, and it means we can buy ten CD's and decide that we own all the good music that there is to own because that's all we've ever heard.
You can imagine what this does to the RIAA's sales...now It's just about time that they realize that the diversity in consumer's musical tastes that is taken away by media conglomerates can be replaced by file-trading, which helps introduce people to new types of music.
"What ever happened to fair use? OOooYah!" - Duff Man
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
...when Chuck D gives the most insightful response to what's going on:
"Who's going to give the grass-roots person a chance?" asks Chuck D. "They can't get on the airwaves, which is supposed to belong to the people. That's a damn shame."
Wow, so all I have to do to get on the radio is make denominations of money that don't exist and give it to people?
Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
Years ago, labels would hype their records directly, often sending "premiums" to program directors and music directors that charted their music (The running joke on the TV series "WKRP in Cincinatti" of cocaine being in record sleeves is based on the real-life antics of Casablanca Records, IIRC).
After the FCC and the Payola Scandal brought this to an end, the "indies" took over. These are the independent promoters that assumed the duties of making sure records get added to playlists and industry charts. In my station, myself and other music directors were wooed with guest list access to shows, open bars, personal copies of albums (sometimes whole back catalogues), and other goodies. Its not uncommon for PDs in commercial stations to have offers of vacations and expensive dinners waved at them.
The end result, same game, different name.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Hit Men is an enlightening read on modern day independent promotion/payola - starts off about how pink floyd's the wall was basically blacked out in l.a. upon it's release cause they didn't use indy promo and expounds on the history from there.
Check it out...
Awwwwww. Too bad.
So downloading music off of the internet is SAVING them money on promotion? It is absurd that they are so confused about thier business practices that they bitch and moan when people "steal" from them, even when it costs them money to put it on the radio.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
So this is basically the RIAA saying, "Hey, you know, we tried to buy influence to assert more control over what listeners hear, and now a company with enough clout has arisen to force us to keep doing what we've been doing all along. Stop us before we skirt the payola laws again!"
I mean, they're saying that only the payee and not the payer of payola is at fault. They are probably enviously eyeing Bill Gate's mansion, while theirs is only on the level of, say, Aaron Spelling.
So they'd like to cut their marketing costs (remember, this is why they say CDs cost so much and that they are a vital part of the process despite the fact that CD recording and distribution no longer requires the resources of a major corporation to undertake), and they'd like the Senator from Disney to do it for them.
Then later on they'll get bored and command him to mud-wrestle midgets for campaign contributions.
Dance, puppets! Dance!
I so don't care who wins this battle.
Oh booo hoo hoo....
Poor poor RIAA, now that there are radio corperations big enough to tell them to stuff it and dictate terms they go crying to the Govt yet again...
"Wahhh, he's bigger than me! make him smaller! because he wont let me tell him what to do anymore!!! Wahhhh!"
i hope clear channel get's fricking HUGE. and then slams the door on the RIAA's hands.
hey, clear channel... ever thing of signing artists yourselves? how about bypassing the record labels directly...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
One organization is driven by profits to produce the least amount of lowest-common denominator bands that would maximize profits, while the other organization is driven by profits to play lowest-common denominator bands.
Oh yeah, they get extra points when they can use thier influence as a tool to condition the masses into cattle like passivity.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
-or-
The president of Kazaa complaining that people are pirating their software by using programs like KazaaLite?
All I have to say is BWAHAHAWHAHWHAW!
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
id rather see the local band at the bar who has never been signed, now ever will be! if you were good, you wouldnt need to make your money off of radio promotion, youd promote your self nofx/grateful dead/phish... and make money by winning your fans at tours, by being a good show.
That's naive, and you're extrapolating a couple of exceptions to the rule (i.e. Phish) into the general case. In any little town, you'll find half a dozen really good bands that may be better than what you hear on the radio, and there are fifty thousand such towns. But it is really, really hard to turn that into a full-time living. You play some bars for a pittance, you sell a couple of CDs per show, and that's hardly enough money to buy equipment, go on tour, and record your next album. It isn't just a matter of being good. It's a matter of getting some backing and marketing help so you can get a wider audience. I know that's not how it works in your idealistic world, but that's how things work in this world.
they only rotate 30 songs on the radio, that means thereare thousands of songs that are never heard... isnt dling a song that isnt on the radio free advertising?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Not trying to plug the service, but I'm curious how new ideas like XM will fit into this.
I think it's easy to agree that a lot of the slashdot audience despises two things in current radio: limited playlists, tons of ads (well and yappy dj's too I guess). Both of these facts exist because the radio station has to maintain a certain level of income.
Does XM run ads? Do we know how they pick their playlists?
Seems to me a subscription based radio is the "next step". Pay a little to get less ads, get more music, get a better variety of music. I just figure paying a subscription will reduce the pressure to maximize profits just a tiny bit, leaving some wiggle room so the radio can actually be enjoyable to listen to.
Course the question is, does XM achieve this?
...can and will be used against them.
;-)
If the RIAA lawyer are worth there money they would make a great case, again Clear Channel as well as against the RIAA. So lets see what they have to say
...when Jerry Del Coliano, who publishes Inside Radio, agrees with *us*
"What does the next generation say? 'Radio sucks,' " says Del Coliano. "The younger listeners are saying, 'I don't need radio.' And they don't."
I heard they suck live
So they found a "way around" the old law, using middlemen. Bullshit, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and the end result is the same, it IS PAYOLA. Round those bastard middlemen up and shoot them at dawn. Round up people who take money from the middlemen and shoot them next. Repeat until the music business is fair to all ARTISTS. The artists can deceide who they want to cut in on their profits. Do not forget to shoot Hillary Rosen and ALL of her ilk, and the lawyers who repersent them too! Never enough dead lawyers...
Who first read the headline as...
Music Industry Seeks Payola.
Z.
"Nothing new there" I thought.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Seems to me I remember something about RIAA wanting $$$ every time someone plays a song "commercially" as in a dance studio or a band that plays covers...
Don't they already collect $$ from stations for music the stations play?
because they can give larger campaign donations.
an industry with many small players suffers from the fact that none of the players can give very much and most of them don't want to give any at all, because a) they don't need any news laws or b) they figure someone else will fight the fight for the industry.
in an industry with a few large players, however, each of the players can give very large donations, and they tend to stick together to a) fix prices for mutual benefit and b) buy the legislation they need in order to self-perpetuate.
congress knows this and adjusts the industry accordingly. for instance, deregulation is just congress's way of allowing an industry to clump together, creating large generous conglomerates. it makes congress's job much easier: fewer checks to cash, and each check is larger.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Man, that reminds me -- I really ought to subscribe to Salon :-/.
PS Since ClearChannel has a large stake in XM Radio, I completely expect XM Radio to support payola >:-[. But, does anyone know if SiriusRadio also support payola? I'm thinking of subscribing, but I wouldn't want to do so if they're corrupt as well.
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
...could this be a good thing for small labels and good music in the long run? Think about it. If the deep pockets of the oligarchy [RIAA] help to dismantle the vertical monopoly of Clear Channel [stations, indie promoters, concert venues] then there's less pressure on program directors to play musical dreck, since they don't get a station van and luxury trips as swag?
[insert M$ bashing for Karma purposes]
Although we know how hard it is to dismantle monopolies in the real world, don't we?
[/insert M$ bashing for Karma purposes]
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
Clear Channel's motto is "How many ways has Clear Channel reached you today". And you thought Microsoft was obnoxious. Their corporate creed is "We believe the ultimate measure of our success is to provide a superior value to our stockholders.".
Clear Channel even owns Rush Limbaugh. He was a big help in getting Congress to remove all limitations on one company owning all the radio stations.
...And it ain't payola.
.05 mhz of their frequency and driving circles around their transmitter should give their engineer a nice Excedrin headache...
Part of the story here is that Clear Channel is also in the "Concert Promotion" business. I put the term in quotes because it's more like legalized racketeering. Their standard procedure, regardless of what specific business they're working in, is to make as much for them regardless of the damage it does to their customers, business partners, and the public. Their theory is, what's good for us is good for us, fuck all others. (I can already see the knee-jerk "the market will decide" Rush Limbaugh clones racing for the reply button about how this is a good thing...Read-on first, please.)
So CC will do things like leverage all their businesses... So, if you want to play a concert at the desirable venues (ie. Not a shitty dive bar) in XXX City, you'll have to have a "music promotion" contract with WXYZ to get your tunes played, a concert prmotion contract with CC Entertainment which also includes a budget for ads on WXYZ, agree to do these other CC shows in other cities, AND do it all for what CC is offering.
In other words, CC is victimizing the RIAA membership the same way the RIAA members victimize their customers. (Ie. Accept our lowball offer to do a conecert, or get no airplay the month you play at a competing venue vs. Pay $19 for a CD we paid $2 to create.)
What we're getting ready for is a battle royale of influence and political contributions, as the two big behemoths who both think they own Congress and have a constitutional right to their obsolete business models go toe to toe, trying to see who can spend the most to get their way.
If I didn't know that this battle will only result in the consumer being screwed even further, I'd say get some popcorn and enjoy the show. As it is, I'd say go pirate some music on Kazaa and start your own pirate radio station.
Or just jam CC properties, if you don't feel like you'd make a good air personality... Tuning your 50 watt transmitter to +-
Who did what now?
It is possible to dislike the RIAA and love this at the same time. It's like a machiavellian wet dream. Couldn't have achieved better if we'd planned it.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Pot: You're black!
Kettle: No, you're black!
Pot: You are!
Kettle: No, you are!
How many US citizens does the RIAA represent? No, I don't mean how many artist or backroom techies or even corporate weasels in suits, because it's not actually representing them. The RIAA (rather the labels that comprise it) are businesses. As such, they represent their owners, not their employees, and not third parties relying on them to market their talents or products. Answering only to shareholders is a fiduciary duty for a publically traded company. If happy employees are the key to financial success, great, but if sacking 95% of them becomes a smarter move, they'll do that without batting an eye. The RIAA represents only the shareholders (or private owners) of the companies that comprise it.
So, does anyone actually know how many US citizens are shareholders in the music businesses that comprise the RIAA? Do these US citizens know? Do they know or care that their ownership legitimizes RIAA demands on Capital Hill?
I ask this because I keep hearing about how much money the RIAA represents, and there seems to be some sort of connection between this and the political influence that they have. Now, in a democracy, this can't be true, because then your vote would count more depending on your income, right? And that's not how a democracy works, is it?
So, let's hear it. Does anyone know how many US citizens the RIAA actually represents (that's US shareholders, not employees)? I'd really like to hear someone in government asking this, because it might (not likely, but perhaps) make Jane Investor start asking exactly where her financial representatives have been gambli^H^H^H^H^H^H investing her money on the stock market, and who she's legitimizing with her investment.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
She insisted that decisions about airplay are driven strictly by research showing what the public wants to hear
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
why I hear "Take it Easy", every time I turn on the radio.
No need for radio airplay when you have the internet. Record labels can set up their own
streaming radio station to promote new music.
No need for Radio. I don't listen to my radio anymore. I use my Neo35 Mpeg player. Commite time radio has far too much talk. So I listen to my
entire CD collection on my MPEG player.
Sounds like a scientology company :-)
no sig.
Well, don't worry. These two groups will get their little tiff worked out and start working on Congress to allow music companies to own radio stations "In the interest of the consumer and fostering competition!" Then they turn into one monopoly and won't have any problems anymore.
Stop the flame about the RIAA and actually look at the case.
Access to radio waves is a privilidge, not a right, because there is only so much electro-magnetic spectrum to go around. The government has the legitament right to make sure the public interest is served by whoever it grants a license to use that spectrum.
Payola, directly is obviously unethical. So is paying promotional middle men to conduct surveys that are favorable to the artists they are hired by in order to get ClearChannel to play their songs.
Now one of the main problems with ClearChannel should be self-evident. They base their "top 40" and "modern/alt. rock" playlists on national polls. The polls are used to make playlists, and the playlists are then dictated to the radio stations. It's a nationally aggregated playlist being forced upon a local market. Like another post said, local DJ's don't really choose very little of what you hear on the radio.
The only way to fix this is to undo the de-regulation that occured in '96. I'm not anti-big busniness, but when is comes to broadcast, companies must be kept under tight control because of the scarsity of bandwidth.
Thank you Dave Raggett
record companies(along with most replication and distribution businesses) are quickly becomming obsolete with everying being digital and the internet hard copies are becomming less and less necessary... especially when they're also becomming more of a pain in the ass to use (cd copy protection anyone). It also seem like many of these companies are now too big to change, and are just trying to keep the status quo with new legislation and technology well all their customers pay for it and will eventually get too pissed and not bother.
Good things never end "eum" they end in "MANIA" or "teria"
"She insisted that decisions about airplay are driven strictly by research showing what the public wants to hear."
That's bass-akwards. By definition, you can't run a poll asking what people want to hear. What the public wants to hear is something different.
They hear something and they like then at that moment or they don't. The same thing at another time might get a different result.
These media corporations have the depth of a puddle of dog urine and the soul of adding machines.
What THEY want is to use yesterday's content as filler between the ads. I'm sure they'd be happier to do away with the content altogether (All those freaky artists. What do they know? And that noise?) and run informercials 24/7. "Sigue, Sigue Sputnik" writ small and quiet.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I work at a student-run radio station, and you wouldn't believe how great the state of music is in america. We get tons of music everyday from great independent artists. But if you listen to Clear-Channel, you're likely to think that American music has reached an all-time low.
And Clear Channel is the company that imposed a ban on about a 1000 songs after September. It hurts artists when their music isn't played anymore.
I'm going to play the Devil's advocate here and ask this question: If I own a radio station and I want to sell broadcasting time to the highest bidding customer, what is wrong with that?
Understand that this question changes if one company owns all of the stations but that's a question of monopoly.
I don't understand what the big deal is. I own the damn antenna, I pay money to the FCC to lease the bandwidth, now you're going to tell me how I can run my business?
RIAA offers bribe. "Look everyone, THEY ARE TAKING BRIBES!" Why are people so stupid? The groups also criticized broadcasting giants, such as industry leader Clear Channel, which owns 1,225 stations nationwide, for flexing their "sheer market power" in ways that can "make or break a hit song." Yeah, nobody wants industry giants to use "sheer market power" to determine the fate of others. Apparently it's bad if such an action crushes a song, but not an artist. Or maybe they should just come out and say that everything that doesn't result in profit for them should be illegal.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
I manage to get to and from work every day without listening to a Clear Channel station. Turn the dial! You might surprise yourself.
Calling the company a monopoly does a disservice to all the great independent and non-commercial stations out there, many of which have started up in the last few years.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the radio industry evolves in the same way the financial services industry has in the last few years. A wave of small, service-oriented community banks has sprung up to fill the voids left by the big mega-mergers of the past decade. The same could easily happen to radio.
I'm guessing most folks here would agree with the sentiment expressed in the article that "radio sucks." I personally only listen to NPR and the local college station, which plays stuff you never hear anywhere else. If the mega-conglomerates in radio & recording want to argue about a situation that's largely of their own making, fine.
-- "" - Harpo Marx
I am not really into the "get / listen to music online" scene (so keep this in mind as you read the next paragraph). Steadily over the past few years, I have tapered off buying CD's to almost nil, and I've sworn off the local radio stations (not so much their CC tie-ins, but that their playlists are insanely short; I heard the same song going to work three days in the same week... and it wasn't a great song to begin with. ARGH).
So now I'm wondering... would it be feasible to setup a slashdot-style online music forum for independent artists to submit music tracks to, such that members of forum could categorize, comment on, rate/rank those submissions to get streamed online? Wouldn't need much of a DJ (per se) as much as a few people to keep the forum running. Heck, if it works, you could probably let members design their on CD for burning for, say, $5 to get sent to them, the proceeds of which go to the forum upkeep as well as the artists themselves. Granted it would take a little while to work up a good user base, but would something like this work? Pros and/or cons?
Radio stations aren't out there for for the benefit of artists or record companies, they are out to make money like any other business. If it takes money to get them to play your record, that's fine. They aren't obligated to play anyone's record. They aren't even obligated to listen to anyone's record. I don't see how this is a problem. Why is it "bad" to accept money to play a record? Because someone else didn't get an opportunity to be heard? They are NOT obligated to hear anyone. This isn't socialism here, it's capitalism!
I will say that eventually this behavior will lead to people to stop listening to a station, as their content will inevitably turn into crap. I personal don't listen to radio for music for that reason. It's all preprocessed pop crap. Their own behavior will drive them out of business, as no one will want to advertise on a station that plays crap and has no listeners. We don't need any legislation to fix this!
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
Clearchannel is a HUGE contributer to the republican party, this monopoly isn't going anywhere while Bush is in office.
What signature defines me as a person?
Well there are 2 ideas to Clear Channels empire before you make judgement.
#1. Clear Channel is vulnerable to commercial radio stations they don't own. (Facts coming)
#2. There will always be someone out there ready to throw them out of power.
The facts I speak of are from personal experience. My father owns a well respected radio station in my area (Northern Ohio). CC has bought up all the surrounding stations except my fathers. Their first attempt at taking my father's station ended in much trouble for them. I don't know how many of you are aware, but you can only own so many stations in a given area that are X amount of miles apart. Well this gave CC a problem and they had to remove their offer to my father. However, it is quite obvious that CC wants my father's station due to all the business we receive from their broadcasting areas. We've even put on shows with popular recording artists right there in CC's face (their station areas). We receive so much of the business that their stations should be receiving that we in a sense dominate the area. Like I said, CC isn't as powerful as they look. Now to go on to topic, many artists may find CC more inviting due to it's owning of so many stations, but what I'm sure they will see is the fact that CC has no dominance in many of its areas. This leads to it being financially idiotic to ever make such a deal with CC. If I were gatorade, why would I have the loser of the race sponsor my drink?
First Microsoft is right for once, and now the RIAA is right for once. Better step up the fur coat exports to Gehenna, 'cause it's getting COLD down there.
I found this part to be confusing:
"Artists, in particular, are hurt because under most recording contracts, promotional costs come out of their royalties", said Michael Bracy of the Future of Music Coalition.
Why? I thought it was the record company's job to promote music. Shouldn't that come out of their percentage? If it's not worth promoting enough to make a profit, they probably shouldn't have signed a contract with the artist.
What happens when the record label decides to do a couple $100,000 promotional parties^H^H^H^H^H campaigns on relatively unpopulated tropical islands? "Er, sorry, but your promotional expenses exceed your royalties. You owe us money."
-ez
Year after year, companies drive prices for
commericals higher and higher - look at the
cost for Super Bowl airtime!
And what is radio if not a 'round the clock
commercial? Honestly I'm surprised it isn't
expected for labels to buy airtime. But don't
worry, advertising is a tax-free business expense!
All of which is exactly why radio is garbage and
I never listen to it.
Since when did the real money go to the talent. I've worked in a number of graphic design studios and software shops and have yet to see the talent make the real money. Most of money goes to the owners and the senior managers. The attitude generally seems to be that skilled staff are easily replaceable and thus worth less*. Cynical maybe, but still true.
* The only time I've seen this prove true has been when staff quit during a project crunch period (like right before the deadline) or when management 'discovers' that the underpaid sysadmin (or whatever) is going to cost big $$ to replace (too bad they were such pricks to him... haha -- no it wasn't me, but I still found it amusing).
I live in Connecticut. Sometimes, that alone is depressing. However, when Clear Channel broadcasting owns 70% of all radio stations in your listeneng area, life just sucks. Retarded, automaton-like DJ's with no local knowledge and a 20 song rotating playlist between endless advertisements. I have boycotted all Clear Channel Stations and I think everyone else should too. They suck.
--Always, I mean never..., No I mean always check your references.--
It's sad that in the Twin cities, radio station formats change here as often as the weather.
I think I know just about every song on Mix104's('80s radio station) playlist, which all seems to fit on a 6-CD changer. It's been 15 minutes, can we hear "Heard it from a friend...." from REO Speedwagon AGAIN?
The saddest part was that the most diverse station, Rev105 which played just about anything(including the Golden Palominos, inspiring me to buy the CD) is nothing but a faded memory. It's now an alternative station, and about a year ago it was a disco/funk station with a super-limited playlist that's dwarfed by my winamp playlist.
Okay, I'm just venting about how bad twin cities radio is, but someone has to mention the Rev.
I'm a (part-time) indie promoter in Canada. I call campus stations and do my best to turn them into major label mouth pieces with free things and celebrity access.
99% of the people who can afford to play that game are big labels. Universal, EMI, Virgin, La Face, at least as big as Koch.
Clear Channel must really have their game together if the RIAA is willing to blow their own tool. I mean, what do they think, radio stations are going to *buy* CDs? The campus stations I work with don't have the money to keep the lights on, without free stuff they'd dry up.
My favourite quote from the article:
Man, this woman is on some bad crack.Paul
I remembered reading several of these articles in the past. Very informative about the whole situation. It's about time someone attempted to do something about it.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I'm having trouble hearing RIAA's commentary. Perhaps I should turn up the WAHmplifier. Kind of hits me right in the WAHbdomen. A really WAHbnormal feeling.
Radio may not be free, but I'm glad it tickles these jerks.
-Chris
This is hillarious. The RIAA is after clear channel for not allowing new music to be distributed. Maybe radio isn't the only medium music can be distributed in. If they would just be happy with letting people use internet radio and allow napster to exist, it would do a great deal to promote their music
perhaps you should try to smoke less before posting
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
XM has two types of channels - those they produce and those they don't. Those they don't typically have ads. They are often Clear Channel stations (which is what Clear Channel gets out of their deal - a certain amount of XM's bandwidth... which the folks that run XM want to buy out as soon as possible).
The other channels? XM has more than 2 million songs in its SAN. The programmers of each channel pick what they want. They are the *best* of the crop in the US that Lee Abrams could hire. Try Cross Country...there is not one song in their playlist that gets airplay anywhere else in commerical radio. Hell, they have a channel that plays *only* bands that don't have a record deal.
The Dog is by far a second best. First, their programming is not as good. Second, it is not ran by radio people, but by satellite people that didn't know what they hell they were doing, thus the replacement of the management.
Finally, their transmission sucks. They use an orbital stratgey that blows (too long to explain why, but it does). Second, they use PAC - made by Lucent, but clearly second rate to AAC - the new standard for MPEG4 and beyond. AAC has been rated better, by a wide margin, by every independent org that has compared them. PAC is likely to get shoved down the US consumer's throat in IBOC digital radio, but it still sucks.
Imagine there was no AM or FM radio, just ubiquitous wireless networking. Moreover, within an area the size of a city, there was multicasting capability over the network. What would most people tune in to? Bittney Spears, regardless of city.
That is why there is Clear Channel. They have a significant economy of scale in operating multiple multicast (i.e. FM broadcast) operations in multiple cities.
Now if we really had that ubiquitous wireless networking, perhaps small stations playing more "interesting" music could integrate listeners from multiple metropolitan areas (around the world) into a large enough audience to be useful. But in any particular city on its own, they would be unable to break even because of the small size of their audience.
Anyway, I'm not too bothered about the monopolization of the FM broadcast band, because there is always XM, which does provide "interesting" music because they have a nation-wide signal, and a different business model.
This is off-topic (more or less), but I felt an urge to contribute my own personal experience in the pre-digital radio industry:
I used to work for an FM station, too -- KQ102 in Canton, Missouri -- and it was pretty interesting. It was from 1988-1989 -- and seemed to be the time right before "digital" took over everything FM.
Everything we played was on 45s -- vinyl -- and each 45 was rated according to its "tempo."
There were thousands of 45s at the station and about ten different tempo numbers. A #1 song was really, really fast -- and a number 10 was really, really slow.
Someone listened to all the music and -- based on the tempo -- placed them into the appropriate tempo bin.
Now, our mission was to look down at our playlist and play songs of varying tempo. We had markings like 1-5-8, or 2-6-10 to indicate the next three songs (fast, medium, slow) and breaks for each commercial or public service announcement.
The idea was that you were supposed to take a 45 from the front of the bin, play it, and then put it in the back of the bin. Of course, it didn't work like that, since our playlist was based on tempo and not song titles -- so all the shitty stuff was in the back of the bins never to be touched, and all the good stuff was in the front.
And we only had to hit our commercials plus or minus two minutes -- and give our top of the hour station announcements within 60 seconds plus or minus -- so we had a *lot* of leeway to play what we felt like, when we felt like it. It was fantastic, actually.
We broadcast out of a tiny white house that had been converted into a radio station. Transmitter in the living room, main booth in one bedroom, production studio in the other, and the sales office in the kitchen.
And we had a *huge* listener base. I used to do a lot of Friday and Saturday night shifts -- from 8pm to 2am -- and, man, I had groupies. I couldn't fucking believe it. People would hear your voice -- on account they'd be playing you at parties and in their car -- and they'd drop by in droves to see what you looked like. It was sick and bizarre, but it was loads of fun. We'd be sitting in the booth and staring out the window into the backyard and see all these people back there, waving and trying to get your attention.
It was really a bizarre thing but amazingly exciting. The fact that we were spinning 45s, playing more or less what we wanted (within reason) made for some amazing nights of music.
Sadly, KQ102 was put out of business by the rise of digital and the fact that they were one of the last stations in the area to still use vinyl. We actually had *turntables* -- as if we were a college radio station. It was a trip.
Great fun. Huge listener base. Gave away lots of prizes and cash.
But it was pretty much stomped out by corporate radio.
Clear channel has 7 stations in the Atlanta area> If you don't want to listen to country or rap, you have to listen to Clear Channel. It is my understanding that they also have a hand in making sure new stations do not get licensed. -G.
Yeah, well if the record companies so concerned about the artist then perhaps the record companies should foot the bill of promoting the product themselves.
This is so transparent. The RIAA is tired of paying the payola system that they themselves helped set up. There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about this complaint that actually helps the artist. It's just another way for the record companies to cut more of their cost and rack in even more of their ill gotten cash while doing nothing to help the people who actually write and perform the music.
People still listen to radio?
if you buy felt tipped markers or post it notes you're supporting terrorism
Maybe I overestimate the share of artists the RIAA represents...
They claim that they are "forced" to pay the radio stations to play their music.
What happens if they don't pay?
Seems to me that the RIAA could handle this internally. All companies that they represent would agree on a course of action. None of them pay. I would think that MajorLabel1 pays out of fear that if they dont, then MajorLabel2 WILL pay, and therefore MajorLabel2 will get their song played. But if all of the MajorLabels controlled by the RIAA agreed not to pay, then what?
We'd be forced to listen to non-RIAA music? Really?
Or, are they afraid this could be seen as a monopolistic practice harmful to the independent promoters? (independent companies jointly deciding where to spend their money)
I think that the above is an old list. There are several stations that I know are Clear Channel stations in Dallas that are not on this list. Clear channel's own station search is probably better:
HereI have heard so many evil things about Clear Channel and I think that thier stations suck; I refuse to listen to them. If I'm listening to the radio it is going to be NPR.
Just do a search on Salon.com to
read about this Corporate bully.
Grateful Dead: Arista
Phish: WEA/Elektra
NOFX: Epitaph
I'd say you made *maybe* 1/3 of a point.
The RIAA has a point, but what they're really mad about is that they want more power to make and break songs. The RIAA has the power to make and break songs. So does Clear Channel. So the reason the RIAA's pissed off is because another organization can break a song that they wanted to make, or make a song they wanted to break. That's all they're upset about. Don't fool yourself into thinking they actually give a damn about artists. Also, this is a tactical move on the part of the RIAA to try to get some good press, after getting so much bad press over their previous wrong-doings.
That said, politics does make strange issues. For this particular one, the RIAA happens to be right. No sense in refusing help from a powerful ally; just so long as you remember this is like WWII, in the RIAA is like Stalin. The enemy of our enemy is only our friend in that particular case, and only so long as our enemy is a threat.
In fighting against Clear Channel, the RIAA may be a useful ally. However, they will not be an ally in building a new world order afterwards. They will simply want to replace Clear Channel with an organization they control.
What is really needed is what Lawrence Lessig proposed -- free airwaves. This is now possible due to current technologies. Free does not necessarily mean unregulated, as Lessig says. The basic idea behind this is that people wanting to use the airwaves are dynamically assigned a frequency upon request. Each person would have some identifier which would help radio-goers find him, no matter what frequency he was on.
This is very much possible with upcoming technology. We should start moving towards this ideal of free airwaves -- the airwaves need to be revolutionized to be like then net, where everyone has an opportunity to put something on them. Perhaps we can start out by making "half" of the radio-frequencies "free" in such a manner.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In other news, the American Medical Association is warning that cigarettes may kill you, and NASA has released a press release stating that the sun is "very, very hot."
I mean, isn't it totally common knowledge that independent promotion is payola vaguely disguised? I can only assume ClearChannel is making noises to push a little bit harder, squeeze a little bit more, and this is the RIAA pushing back. 'Cause this has been going on forever.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
when I have 30gb of MP3s?
The society average has always been crap, the music they listen to (or are told to listen to) is crap and the TV they watch is also crap (ooh goodie a new series of Big Brother starts tonight)!
I can listen to quality advert free music that I like, when I like without any spammy DJ uttering shite at me
ACE
If they can all work together to fight payola, why not just stop doing it? It makes sense that no one company would fight it alone, because they would just die. But if they are willing to band together to rally against it, wouldn't it be easier to just band together and fix it?
This is all speculation, but the only answer I can come up with is that they are all untrustworthy cheats. If they made such an agreement the only real result would be a contest to see who could break the agreement first. These people don't want the problem fixed, they want media attention focused on someone elses illegal, immoral business practices so that it gets drawn away from their own.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Actually, I've been really pleased with the radio station at CU Boulder, radio 1190. They play a HUGE variety of music, are mostly listener-supported, and have live mp3 streams at various bitrates.
You guys should check them out-- everything from Japanese pop to reggae to industrial to "world music." (Actually, I think the J-pop host is away for the summer, but I bet she'll be back in the fall)
There are several interesting alternatives to the radio model we have today. The first is micropowered broadcasting. Micropower broadcasting is all about creating very cheap, low-powered transmitters in the 1 to 100 watt range. At these power levels the equipment is cheap, simple to use, can reach across most cities and rural areas, and allows a larger concentration of micropower broadcasting. Micropower allows communities, neighborhoods, and special interest groups to have their own radio stations and communicate with their local communities. I find it to be an attractive, democratic vision. Also check out Free Radio Berkeley for information on low-cost transmitters that are available, as well as educational information.
Another model that is still developing, and which is beautifully decentralized, is the OpenSpectrum idea. This model is based on several ideas. One part that is core is that the spectrum is not prematurely allocated to particular uses and users; instead, people have transceivers that can both broadcast and receive at a range of powers and at a range of frequencies. These transceivers constantly look at the spectrum, jumping around and broadcasting at various frequencies depending on the density of other transceivers. One important aspect is that transceivers can also act as repeaters for other transceivers. A few years ago it was theoretically shown that if this is done that "one can build a practical network whose capacity increases the more stations you add". This is powerful stuff, and the ideas should slowly percolate into society over the next few decades as the technology continues to improve (things like Ultra Wide Band, software defined radio, decentralized wireless meshes, etc.)
Make media! Make Trouble!
Brad GNUberg
Tangential, but.... Your comment about rating music by tempo is reminescent of what WGMS (Washington DC classical music station) is doing. They've rated 10,000 pieces of classical music according to mood, and then play the various moods according to what they think people wish to listen to at various times of the day (energetic in the morning, soothing after work, etc. ) Of course this does suck, because they no longer play complete pieces of classical music :(
afaik, clear channel has bought up almost all the stations that the fcc will let them have, in just about every market around the us...
It's not stupid, it's advanced!
Don't like being on the receiving end of a monopoloy, do you RIAA?
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
The owners of MTV and VH1 definitely push songs as much as any radio station. And your big 4 broadcasters own most of the radio stations. Disney has hundreds of stations, GE, hundreds, and of course News Corp. (FOX).
It's funny that the RIAA is fighting something that is so much like them--so close in fact, that they are practically hand in hand. Radio drives album sales, albums drive radio sales.
It's all a big mess. My solution is to boycott everything. I don't buy CD's, I just listen to my old stuff. I don't listen to the radio and I don't watch Television.
Problem solved.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Any others?
_______
2B1ASK1
...it is organized crime.
From my reconning, if you use a middleman to do for you something that if you do it yourself it is illegal, then the middleman doing it is threading very thin ice...
So thin that in most countries it would be considered organized crime and thrus they would be prossecuted for criminal charges (and step sentences)...
But alas...
Again, the socialists and un-politically-savvy geeks are blaming big business, when it is really big government that is the problem.
Want to wipe the RIAA, ClearChannel, and all these "big bad businesses" out of business? Deregulate the radio industry. Entirely. Don't allow the feds to regulate who can broadcast on what radio frequency.
Overnight, you'll see ma and pa (and large commercial) radio stations pop up all over the place. If the airwaves are free, why do we need government to regulate it? Let the airwaves be what they are good for -- to broadcast to your peers and those around you. Big radio antennaes shouldn't broadcast hundreds of miles anyway, let the locals decide what they want to hear...
I'm sick of people thinking its BIG BUSINESS that causes corruption in America. It's not. It's government giving itself powers it constitutionally can not have.
Every 3 or 4 or 6 letter law you guys are afraid of, and every big organization or company you're afraid of, would NEVER throw money at Congress and the President if the fucking federal government would abide by the limitations set forth in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution.
Want to hurt these pricks? Vote libertarian. On your 2002 ballot, you'll find a lot of them, no matter where you live.
the difference between "Payola" and "product placement fees". Why is the first illegal and second one legal?
I thought that radio was for my wireless appliances and for truckers to communicate.
Does this have something to do with the "FM" button on my receiver? I thought that was a white noise generator.
DJs haven't selected any songs to play for about 25 years.
I will clarify for y'all the reference which another has pointed out. NOFX(who is in competition with Bad Religion for the title 'oldest punk band still standing') released a live album entitled "I Heard they Suck Live!" The picture is of a guy saying this to another guy AT a concert. It's absurdism, and it's supposed to make a point, but I think your dumb band bashing has rendered it moot. Whatever.
"Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
OK, I know /. is dynamic. That's good. But I wanted a link from this item to make my submission after work and [guess what] the link is no longer there! It ws there 13 hours before, when I got up and did a quick check of the news I follow.
/.
OK, I will find it later tonight. But how about either linking to earlier versions or keeping the earlier links in?
And this is one of the many reasons I'll take the adverts and not pay
djve
"There is magic in the web." - Othello Act 3 Scene 4.