Slashdot Mirror
Labels Find New Method of Payola
rhadamanthus writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting on the newest 'legal' payola tactic put forth by the record industry: playing the song as an advertisement. It seems that while it is illegal to pay a radio station to play a song, it is not illegal to play a song as an ad. Quoth the article, 'The practice is legal as long as the station makes an on-air disclosure of the label's sponsorship -- typically with an introduction such as "And now, Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me, presented by Arista Records."' Incidentally, that song was played 109 times in one week by Nashville station WQZQ-FM."
All five major record corporations have at least dabbled in the sales programs, industry sources said, with some reportedly paying as much as $60,000 in advertising fees to promote a single song.
This seems to be just one more underhanded tactic being utilized by the record labels these days.
a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
When it comes down to it, the labels are still effectively following the old outlawed practice of "paying for play", trying to hide behind a technicality in current US law. Though, that's something they seem to be doing a lot of these days.
In the latest twist, it's the radio stations themselves that have been reaching out to the labels, offering to play songs in the form of ads, often in the early morning hours when there tends to be an excess inventory of airtime. The practice is legal as long as the station makes an on-air disclosure of the label's sponsorship -- typically with an introduction such as "And now, Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me, presented by Arista Records."
To be sure, Don't Tell Me is a bona fide hit, even without spins being bought and paid for. Radio stations must play a song many thousands of times for it to crack the Billboard top 10. Nonetheless, a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
Hmm. The only thing I am sure about is that the music industry is making the sheep believe that a song is a hit at the expense of their own customers.
"In our business, perception is reality," he said. "The minute you're down in spins, these program directors drop the record."
If it is played 40 times a week people are going to hear it and *believe* that it is popular. When it gets artificially vaulted to the top of the charts more people are going to *believe* that it is popular.
Now. Where did the money come from for them to pay the radio stations to "advertise" the song? Music buyers. That's right. The wonderful conglomerates are at it again. Telling the sheep what to think is good and paying to make sure they hear it and keep buying it. Do you really want to keep supporting conglomerates that use shady tactics and your money to make some songs more popular than others?
No? Then support freedom of music and stop the roundabout tactics, money wasting, and bullshit.
Seriously...who listens to the rubbish that passes for (music) radio these days?
I'm sure this will get modded down as flamebait... but isn't this just an effective form of advertisement for the record or digital download? If the Mattress Superstore down the street can buy ad time on the radio, why not record labels? I'd rather listen to a 5 minute Avril Lavigne song than 5 more minutes of ads (although it is a pretty close call.)
I understand why traditional payola is verbotten, but this seems like a legitimate ad placement. Indeed, given how inexpensive radio advertising is at the local level (outside of drive time) I'm surprised small local bands haven't already grabbed onto this idea.
I know the RIAA and such is evil, but come on... as my grandfather used to say, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
jrjBlog
I see a lot of this on TV. Shows with audiences and amazing products that will change your life. Its one big paid advertisement.
How is this any different? Except they have to pay for a lot of time (2-3 minutes) of ad time.
There's no way this is new. I have a very small record label and this is something we've been talking about and doing for quite some time now.
Smells of desperation to me
I'd say worse, but they would get pissed and sue me for ripping the 200 CDs I own, even though I only use them on my MUVO MP3 player...
-------- Docrobot
As if we dd
in bed.
"You think I care about the pea-brained yokels of this town. I can't stand those sniveling maggots! They make me want to puke. But there is one good thing about broadcasting to a town full of mindless sheep: I always know I've got them exactly where I want them."
- R.J. Fletcher, "UHF"
that if someone has to pay a radio station to play a song, then chances are that the song is not that good?
usually a song sells itself to people and any good song shouldn't have to pay to be played.. if the listeners want to hear it, they will play it but they would be playing it for the wrong reasons if paid.
if i still listened to the radio.
Hmmm interesting. We should keep an eye on these fellows. With this kind of business practice there's no telling what they might try. ~sarcasm~
I boycott signatures
Just because it's sponsored by its label, doen't make it good music.
Support your local music scene & independant radio stations. That's where the REAL talent is.
thelikesofwhich.com
... 109 kittens were found dead this morning... ...developing...
It seems kind of strange that the law should require any of this. If you want to charge for airtime on your radio station, you should be able to. And if nobody wants to pay you, then tough Schitt.
With 30 seconds of air time costing a few hundred dollars on even the smaller radio stations, I wonder how much it costs to play a three minute song? I don't see how it really matters in the scheme of things though. We're already inundated with this crap as it is. Why someone would want to pay to have it played when so many stations are paying royalties to play it on their own? Someone wake me up when a decent radio station hits the air. Then maybe I'll care if someone is getting payola.
60 percent of the time, my comments are right everytime.
Greedy, as we didnt already know. Then again, they are a business, like anyother business. Trying to make money off the masses.
This is my signature.
They want us to listen to this music. However, we still have to make up our own minds about whether we like it enough to buy the entire album or not. Wouldn't the record labels perhaps save their advertising dollars by promoting a special download of Avril's song somewhere? Instead we get to have this song shoved to our, already bleeding, ears.
Hmmm.
Lots of companies buy advertising to convince people to buy stuff they don't need. Why can't record companies do it?
paintball
Seems to me that playing the song on the radio, at the label's expense, would be the simplest way to promote album sales.
Hopefully this trend will continue, leaving the stations free to play a more interesting variety, if the mass-market crap they're playing now migrates to paid ads. Why play it for free when the labels are willing to pay for it?
I don't mean this as flamebait... I guess I just don't understand why paying for airtime is disallowed to begin with. I think the RIAA has a lot of underhanded tactics, and skirting laws is yet another one, but I don't know why there's a law to begin with. Seems like we all love to champion open competition and free markets as long as people stay within the rules, why is paying a radio station to play music any different? Perhaps I just need a lesson in radio economics. :/
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Things like this just further my suspicion that more and more major label artists are merely puppets for the label. Heavily produced albums, lyrics oriented towards their target demographic, it's all so fake. Not all bands on major labels are bad, admittedly the corporate machine does make some decent tunes here and there.
Independent music seems to have a certain stigma attached to it still, kinda like the generic brand at the grocery. But check some indie stuff out, it's music by people for people.
I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
...of my close friends if I name it "Metallica - One - By Geffen records.mp3"?
Doesnt that mean I could play any recordings as an ad to myself? And it would be totally legal to play without paying for the stream or whereever the file comes from?
;-)
Just gotta hear that ad again
If Avril's song was around 3 minutes long, then about 2 minutes out of every 60 was devoted to "Don't Tell Me."
People who complain about the quality of a free service amuse me. I mean that in the most condescending way possible.
Well, it is already incredible tough for an independant to break through, now if you throw in big record money for pay for play it is that much tougher.
You have an almost monopoly, using monopoly money to give it an advantage over smaller competitors.
If practice like this is allowed you move in the direction of having music controlled by a few giant companies that dictate everything about how and what we listen too. Essentially we are already there and this reinforces the position.
I heard about this strategy being used a year or two ago, and if I remember it actually hurt the sales.. the radio station insisted on the full 'any opinions expressed in this piece are not nesecerily blah blah blah....' and the song wasn't that great to begin with, so it managed to drive people from buying their album....
Reece,
To offer a song on my website via a Flash Ad or a DRM protected file as an ad for money. What's wrong with that?
Ted
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
This would have upset me deeply had I read the article before posting.
So, I'm still wondering: if the "song" is really an "advertisement" for the purposes of regulation, why does it count towards a billboard rating?
And if adds do count, why isn't Moby the top rated artist of all time (by virtue of his popularity on Madison Ave.)?
credo quia absurdum
this. Much better than the garbage I get to listen to otherwise.
Jobs? Which jobs?
Honestly, payola is one of those things that's going to happen, like drinking and college kids smoking pot.
I'd rather the corruption be out in the open than live under the false belief that, gasp, good music might be favored by DJs.
Finally, it'd put an end to all the pollyannish stories crying that the purity of Big Corporate Music has been betrayed.
Check out my blog: My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
The good thing about classical is that the CDs still cost a reasonable $5-$8 canadian.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
No commercials (except for promoting their own stuff sometimes- like "Check out stream xxx for this!" type stuff), and as far as I can tell- no pay for play. Lots of variety, lots of station choices, no commercials, I can listen to the same station all across the country (I do a couple big road-trips a year). I love satellite radio! I can't stand the Clear Channel-ish crap that local radio in Denver (and most other major cities) has become.
I used to listen to the FM music radio stations all the time about 10-15 years ago, when I was a kid. I never listened to the mainstream genres of the day, being more interested in 60s and 70s rock, blues, jazz. It was bad enough that the playlists seemed to only get smaller and the number of commercials were increasing, but you could still hear great songs.
Now I can't remember when it was the last time I did that. Even in my car, I only listen to the AM news stations, and even that mostly for the traffic reports (living in Toronto it's suicide not to, you can get stuck for hours on the 401 if you're not aware of accidents). With the consolidation under ClearChannel and Standard Radio, sometimes I can't even tell the difference between stations, they're ALL playing the same music more or less.
Now that the RIAA, and probably the CRIA (the RIAA's Canadian offspring) soon, are paying to have the same song played constantly, they have pretty much guaranteed I will never listen to music on the radio again.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
As probably many of you will already know, there are legal ways to listen to quality, Free music (with no ads, of course). This Free (as in GPL), cross-platform program is a great example, but I'm sure there are others. Eventually we will drive RIIA (here in Spain: SGAE) off, and change IP laws, but we will start off a better position if "propietary music" is no longer perceived as sinonymous with "music", something we are already achieving with software.
In the meantime, don't be surprised by nasty tricks like this one.
My journal. Mainly about freedom.
First off, everything that the labels are doing is perfectly legal and its up to the a. radio station to make the decision or b. the consumer to make the decision.
While there are very few of us that don't prefer radio today, there are those that are perfectly happy listening to the same song over and over again regardless of how good it is.
I think that's one of the key items. The norm is now 'created' by those with the money to influence it. If it's playing on the radio 90 percent of the time, it must be popular. Right? There's almost nothing in the way of choice of genre, but then again, I suppose there never was. Aren't we supposed to be moving forward?
These are just my views anyway...
One thing that holds true is that playing the same song over and over again, regardless of how good it is, destroys it -- and it's seems to be common practice.
Personally, I think that very little music today shows anything in the way of innovation or talent. There are a handful of artists that I enjoy listening too, but I'm happy to be able to put whatever I want into my CD player and listen to it. When my fiance tells me that she wants to listen to the radio instead, I CRINGE.
In the end, it's up to the sheep and we're all subjected to what they'll follow, so buckle up:)
this Bud's(TM) for you. -Anheuser-Busch St. Louis Missouri
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
My thoughts exactly! Don't be a sheep at all and listen to college radio.
From dictionary.com:
quoth
tr.v. Archaic
Uttered; said. Used only in the first and third persons, with the subject following: "Quoth the Raven, 'Nevermore!'" (Edgar Allan Poe).
I submitted this once as an ask slashdot question (and got rejected), but I think it's of relevance here. I know others want to boycot the RIAA, but it can be difficult to find decent indie bands when every friggin' station in your area is Clearchannel.
In short, I can either piss and moan about how "this is wrong blah blah blah", or I can do something about it. Best I can do in my limited means is boycot. But I need music. What are some good indie bands?
Two of my faves - Rilo Kiley and Azure Ray. Their websites have MP3s of their songs (full length, no DRM bullshit, 100% cool) for you to listen to. Another favorite source of good music is OCRemix. A lot of the Castlevania 1-3 remixes are particularly good.
So, anyone else out there willing to share the music? =)
If you want to hear what you want, it's going to cost you.
Yeah, you can listen to indie bands. Click here to listen to bands that suck.
Wether downloading an mp3 of the ad version of a track would be illegal.
How does copyright apply to a advertisement that is designed to reach as many people as possible and create a "cool track meme" just to get the track purchased.
"You're listening to K U D D radio. Don't touch that dial its got kudd on it!"
"goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
If those count as plays, I'm surprised that Billboard list isn't proclaiming that "Tom Shane's new hit: 'We are importing emeralds now'" and "Toyota's breakout '0.9% financing for June'" are top hits...
I'm not sharing a music file... I'm sharing a commercial !
Okay, Googled it, can't find the law, but I did find several interesting sites with commercials !
Anyone know the relevant laws ??? (Yeah, IANAFL).
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
I like the CBC radio because there aren't any ads or bullshit like this article is pointing to; it's funded by our government and there are zero ads whatsoever. Sure it's news radio, but they also have some great music on there at times. All of our other local radio stations, except for Queen's University Radio (CFRC-FM) would stoop this low. It's pretty sickening if you ask me. University radio usually doesn't bother with gimmicks as they get most of their funding from the student government (and the student body). Even a solid hour of classical music is better than twenty-seven ad blocks in an hour, like on other local radio stations. It's just not worth it to listen to commercial radio stations these days -- too much crap.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Instead of fighting the music labels, perhaps what people should lobby billboard magazine to set up an anonymous mp3 download tracker for each "official" mp3 version of a specific song.
Then the labels would then have an incentive for more people to download and listen to a specific "official" version of a song so that their rating points would go higher. This would likely put the appropriate down-pressure on the price of that "official" tagged version of a song (maybe even inspire "free-download" days)...
Note that this is all slightly tongue-in-cheek since the privacy experts will likely frown on this and probably the only reason for stunts like this (and other like prince giving away free cds at concerts) is that someone, somewhere has a weird performance bonus clause written a contract that makes this profitable for them, but of course probably less money from the person on the other side of the contract.
The record business is a pretty low-down business with all sorts of wacky contracts people use to screw each other out of the every shrinking money pie. I doubt it is possible to extrapolate the next wierd behavior before the contract people catch up to it...
Both use the same model of business. This ad/music would be equal to the Home Shopping Channel.
As long as you people are asleep at the wheel and don't know what a real FIX is then this will keep going on.
Ultimate answer is don't trust business to run our AIRWAVES. We own them and we can run them better than they can. Quit auctioning off our spectrum to the highest bidder and instead have government build enough towers to have high speed WiFi on all frequencies or use something better that comes along.
explain to me again why it should be illegal to be able to pay a radio station to play your song?
Why is it that it's okay to milk the technicalities for all of us who are making 'legal copies' of our music for 'backup purposes,' but when the *evil* record companies do something technically legal, we go for the jugular and the moral high ground.
I just want to see some consistency.
Well, I'd say this is a bad thing because of the original payola laws. Think about that - the music industry was so corrupt that a very specific law had to be written to prevent them from exercising monopoly power over the entire broadcast medium.
Now, they've found a way around it. While it might be 100% legal, the behavior that the payola laws banned is happening again. Put another way, if the music industry is doing things correctly and not hurting anyone, why were the payola laws enacted in the first place? Giving them airtime seems to me like letting a junkie work in a pharmacy. They've already proven that they are incapable of keeping the public's best interest at heart.
Abusive monopolies are harmful. Our system works (ideally) on competition and consumer choice. Take that away, and product suffers.
And that's how you wind up with Avril Lavigne being played over 100 times in a single week like some sort of Chinese water torture.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Most of the music these days is really just a hook, listen to it a few times and you'll want to keep listening, you dont give a flying fuck for the lyrics, singer or anything else about the song, the verse is just filler until you get to the catchy chorus, the melody is reused and repeated (copy and paste). No-one gives a crap about the lyrics of some queen bitch or boy-band they are as cliche to the point where you can most of the time guess the end of each line. The singers sound exactly the same in each of their categories and they all share in their inflated egos about doing something special. Its all about making money, and I just have nothing to do with it, if i get hooked on a song, theres no chance in fuck that im actually going to go and pay for it.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I could not find it anywhere else. It was not remastered or cleaned up. All they did was repress the original vinyl onto CD. Nineteen bucks.
They, their wives and children should rot in the flames of hell for eternity.
I simply turn it to a space between stations and listen to static. If I actually want music, I get out the ol' mp3 player with music ripped from CDs I purchased used. No commercials, no music I hate, and I am not feeding the corporate monsters. Sadly I am not feeding the artists either, but for them to eat well the corporate monsters must die first. Why the artists haven't banded together to form a non-profit label I have no idea.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I bet you could run a whole station like this, with ALL the time sold as ads.
Say you sell the time in 9-12 minute blocks, to multiple labels. That way, you can play 3-4 songs, as well as only have to run one disclaimer that it's an ad. Most people don't have a clue what label the artists are on, so they might not even see it for what it is. They'd just think it's one of the regular commercials.
This is such a good idea that I'm sure someone's doing it already.
I can change the filename of the song to
"Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me, presented by Arista Records.mp3"
and I instantly have a legal mp3??
Next thing you'll tell me is that the artist is able to see "The Books" at a moment's notice and those books will be accurate and uncooked.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Very little of what record companies do these days involves recording. Recording the actual music is just a technical detail. What they really spend all their money and effort on is finding bands to market and paying for and crafting marketing campaigns.
That's why they are so mad at you when you copy their music. They made a multi-million dollar investment in telling you from every radio, station, every store isle, every billboard what music to listen to and now you're taking their advice and not paying them for it in the form of record sales.
they also manage to have a ridiculously expensive and nice facility with a nice strong transmitter.
on the other hand, my college radio station just held a fundraiser so our transmitter building can actually have a roof.
eastern mass and ri have managed to get pretty good 4 college stations with a decent range (no, wbru does NOT count)
You take me out and pay for it
I tell you things you're gonna get
When it comes time to screw
I say not with you!
I can lie take your money and cheat
But don't treat me like a piece of meat!
Don't tell me what to do!
I'm going to go have sex with your abusive friend in a week or two.
So what? So the record labels pay to have their songs played more. Good, let them spend the money on the radio industry. Barring those in upper positions, people in the radio industry make DIRT for money. Most DJ's barely make 18k a year, and that is for putting in some crazy hours. Only a rare few make good money. Generally, to make decent money in the radio industry you need to work there for a decade or more, and that is in a non-air position. Hopefully some of this money will filter down to the DJ's (especially those on the graveyard shifts who make very little cash), and other low paid tech staff. I do not think this is underhanded - other industries pay to have their material played - and if its good for them it should be good for the labels. P.S. Yes I do hate what they record industry is doing in other topics (backing up songs, price fixing, etc...) but in this case, i see no problems.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
More news at 11, to be followed by:
The sky is blue, an expose.
Water found to be wet.
Footage shows bears really do crap in the woods.
Perhaps the 'charts' just need to stop existing.
Either that or people need to recognize that determining popularity of a song by the number of times it was played is no longer a valid method.
Why do people need a 'list' of songs to know what they like? Cant people decide for themselves what they like?
Playing Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me 109 times in a week. Thats 15 times a day or a little over once every two hours.
I'd like to think that this practice would end if your played a song 100 in a week. I think a radio station where I live played "Your body is a wonderland" and "Lullaby" enough to set a few records as well.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
If they really want to make a song popular....
Why don't they pay "US" to download it ! !
I'd sure be willing to accept a little Payola...
err..I mean advertising revenue
Business is Business and Business must grow, Regardless of crummies in tummies you know... -Onceler
Why not embrace this method, and turn top-40 style radio into a "pay-for-play" system?
It might actually improve the stations. I don't listen to any commercial radio because there are so many damn advertisements between the songs. If a station is all pay-for-play, it can dump the advertisers, and make its revenue with an "only music, no ads" format.
If a record company wants to dump a lot of money on a song, hoping for success, that's fine. In the end, if the song really sucks anyway, the money is wasted. The record companies will learn some expensive lessons, and only promote what can succeed.
The listeners know it is a pay-for-play system. If they find that a station sucks, they stop listening. The station's rates dive, and they get smarter about what material they will accept.
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
Honestly, payola is one of those things that's going to happen, like drinking and college kids smoking pot.
I'd rather the corruption be out in the open than live under the false belief that, gasp, good music might be favored by DJs.
Finally, it'd put an end to all the pollyannish stories lamenting that the purity of Big Corporate Music has been betrayed.
Check out my blog: My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
I listen to several FM hip-hop stations in DC, and I like them. Sorry!
Okay, fair dinkum RIAA, I will give you free advertising; In fact you dont even have to supply me with tunes; Ill rip them myself and play them to my friends; Hey maybe since Im advertising your tunes for free, maybe you could offset the cost by reducing the price of CDs...
...
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
MSNBC on Indies
How-stuff-works on Indies/Payola
The ClearChannel method is even sneakier...ClearChannel owns the concert venues and billboards too. If you want your album played, you'd better use their venues and ad media.
I have never heard the name "Avril Lavigne" spoken; I've only read it. So I have no idea how to pronounce it. And I don't think I want to know.
How is it unjust that promoters pay broadcasters to play particular tunes?
/. ideology, we are for free speech around here, and if you don't like what is being said, then you don't have to listen to it. So if a radio station plays a tune too much, or one which you don't like, then you don't have to listen to it. Turn off the radio or change the channel. Can someone please explain how it is that involvment of promotional motives somehow negates that principle of free speech ?
According to prevailing
Freedom means freedom. It doesn't mean freedom only when it suits your own anti-corporate agenda. Yes, for my taste, clearchannel stations play a too small selection, much of which is overpromoted crap. However, I am not prepared to abandon my principles in opposition to that crap. Stations should be free to make programming decisions based purely on profit motive and I should be free to turn the dial if I don't like it. That's how freedom works folks. People deciding things for themselves. Freedom is not a government regulator dictating how music programming should be decided.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
1)
They pay the record stores big $$$ for nice display racks up front where everyone can see it. They pay for local stores to advertise their "hot selections".
It doesn't surprise me that they would buy advertising spots on local radio and sell their music. It's not any worse than informercials on TV. What would be worse is if the radio stations gave the record companies a rate cheaper than anyone else can get. That would make me angry.
2) The most irritating thing to me is the 6 minutes of previews on DVD that I'm forced to watch when I watch movies like Babe. 6 minutes of previews. 3 different DVD players, and I can't skip forward to the menu. And, since I opened the piece of garbage, I can't return it. It was a gift to my son, but someone paid $15 for the thing, and they have to watch 6 minutes of CRAP before the movie can start. At least with VHS, you can fast forward. And, they don't declare it on the outside of the box. If they did, I'd avoid DVDs with unskippable ads. I'd sure like to find the person responsible for that decision. I'd like to mail them 20 lbs of dog crap, postage due.
If people are willing to succumb to sales tactics, then so be it. But selling advertising space isn't scary. It beats having to pay to listen to the radio. And I won't do that. The minute I have to pay for service AND tolerate advertising, I'm out the door. I can't remember the last time I listened to music radio.
-- No sig for you!
You people can't even get your villains straight.
Here is a press release from Hilary Rosen herself, right off the RIAA's website: http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/013003.asp
Just because they won't let you download their songs for free does not mean that they are on the opposite side of every issue (although I'm betting some of you will quickly change your positions on payola once you here where Rosen really stands on the issue).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Wow! How did you manage to get it into your CD player?
A lot of people, check out KEXP, it's one of the better independant radio stations, and they stream in most formats if you're not in the Seattle area. Plus they have online archives of recent shows and what not. Check it out, they have a pretty eclectic set of shows.
Check it out
The parent post beat me to the point.
Advertisements should NOT be counted in the Billboard Charts. There is something seriously wrong with the system. At least the television networks cannot buy Nielson ratings by bribing viewers. We do not tolerate steroids in athletics, we do not condone special interests buying legislation, and we should also cry foul over the destruction of popular culture and mass-market art.
What's the best way to shame Billboard into excluding ads from the rankings? Web, email, or phone campaign? Media watchdog group?
Radio stations provide value, so record companies pay them to play music. Now the RIAA is discovering that ClearChannel is more powerful than them and they are stuck in the middle of a problem of their own making.
I would like to see more innovation in the music sales model - things like radio stations being given free plays providing they give the URL you can buy the CD etc.
Well, duh stupid!
KaZaA?
http://www.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/index.html
If you haven't read Salon's coverage from the last couple years, you really should. There's a very good reason that Clear Channel stations play drastically narrower content than independent stations: the music industry collectively pays literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year to decide what gets played.
As far as I'm concerned, this new tactic of announcing up front what they're doing is 100 times better than the system described in the articles I linked. I still find it revolting that they so successfully determine the musical tastes of a nation, but I'm glad they're not hiding it.
(Incidentally, running songs as advertisements isn't a suddenly discovered loophole. It's mentioned in an article from 2002 that paying a radio station to decide what gets played is illegal, "unless they announce the sponsorship on air." What's new is the idea that people might not care.)
Why is it that the RIAA will pay a radio station $60,000 to play their songs, and then turn around and sue a 12 year old girl for effectively "rebroadcasting" their advertisement?
So, fans get sued by the RIAA for downloading the same music the RIAA paid a radio station to broadcast. How can one be piracy, but not the other? After all, why would I buy the CD if the radio plays it all the time? Doesn't it occur to the RIAA that music fans have no need to buy the CD if the radio station is always playing a particular artist's music?
I'm kind of curious as if there are any slashdotters brave enough to distribute mp3's of these "commercials" (in their entirety, of course...) and then send the RIAA and invoice for every file downloaded...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
(1) This also means that independant artists can advertise for their music the same way, and
(2) Radio stations can still be selective about what they're going to play.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
BTW, if you really want to fight back against the music companies find other ways to find music to listen to. Ask the DJ at your favorite club what he's playing. Listen to Internet Radio, etc. If you like rock, go see local bands. Don't watch MTV, don't listen to music radio!
I'm still shocked and awed that payola is an actual term and that people use it as if it were something serious/of great importance. As I am amazed at people that purchase CDs, knowing full well where the money goes.
Must-not-watch TV!
Do artists have a viable choice?
Perhaps, see here for Robert Fripp's solution.
SteveM
Well, if you think of it, it's actually irrelevant if anyone listens to radio. I mean, for television, we have the Nielsen ratings so that ABC, CBS, etc. can adjust programming to appeal to audiences. However, with radio, there is no such feedback system (i.e. it is open loop). The whole notion of radio advertising is based on the fiat system--advertisers have faith that people listen, regardless of whether or not they do. If everyone stopped listening, how would the advertisers know?
Clearly boycotting radio doesn't do much good, unless of course it gets a lot of other media attention...
Really. I tune into NPR for news, and other than that, I just listen to MP3 CD's in my truck.
I live in LA, where most of the music is made, and we have *no* good stations. It's all the same shit, day after day.
I don't bother to set the presets on my CD player any more.
Fuck them all - inluding TicketMaster, Clear Channel and the RIAA.
Really, just what is so wrong with "payola," anyway? How is it different from any other form of advertising? If a radio station got no money from any source other than payola, at least then all the ads you'd hear on that station would be for products you've already proven yourself to be a member of the market for (i.e. music).
It seems to me that, once upon a time, the Billboard charts had some sort of meaning or value and it was important to know exactly which single was where on the charts, and it was really bad if a record label "rigged the game" with some kind of payola scheme. But these days, who gives a shit? We know music is a business... why isn't it allowed to advertise?
(And I'm saying this even though I'm one of the (apparent) Slashdot majority that wouldn't listen to most of the crap on the radio if they paid me.)
Breakfast served all day!
The same song: listen at a time of their choice, it's on their tab. But if you say when, you must pay.
Labels are never selling songs -- they are selling a time-shifting function to your radio tuner, at the price of US$ 1 per time-shifted tune. And this is a hefty price for a function that can be had for zero (per tune) marginal cost, in a number of different digital and analog equipments.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
Why don't the labels simply buy (or create) radio stations for themselves? Then they could skip the ad-placement phase and cut right to the playing of stuff they want to push.
Come to think of it, why not buy (or create) record stores too?
How about venues for concerts?
Are there some sort of laws against record labels owning radio stations/record stores/performance venues?
I mean, c'mon, if you're going to tell people what to like and then charge them to get it, do it right.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Who cares about 'charts' and where a record is on it? Does anyone even know someone who purchases music based on where on a 'chart' it is? Sure, retail stores make buying decisions based on an album's climb in the charts, but that's their business - overestimate and they have excess stock to sell at a discount eventually.
US media outlets are participating in a great big scam over popularity, in everything from politics to the music industry. Commercial radio, cable and television companies aren't interested in what they play or where on a chart an album is - they're just interested in how much they can charge for a minute of air time.
What makes me really sick is all the campaign money that gets spent in election years. Hundreds of millions of dollars is spent in a popularity contest between candidates, almost all of it going straight into the pockets of the media outlets, and only in those states deemed to be 'winnable' (battleground states). Candidates should be limited to some paltry sum of money and have to rely on free advertising or actual public appearances to garner support.
Bah.
-Elentar
The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
While direct payola was made illegal quite a long time ago, it still exists. This is probably not a shock for the more jaded people here. But the extent that it is implemented might be shocking to some that are not in music.
In fact, nothing gets on commercial radio without being paid for. The only exceptions are college radio, and specialty shows like Dr. Demento and local music shows (such as local Anaestetic on WXRT in Chicago).
How does it work if it's illegal? It's actually very simple. Each radio station is locked in with an "Independent Promoter" who helps the labels get their songs played on the radio. The IPs, as they're called in the industry, are also not supposed to pay for songs to be played, but they do anyway, under the table. Also promotions such as vacations and other items end up going to Radio CEOs rather than listeners. The IPs are more like a toll authority for each station. Often, they make exclusive contracts with stations so that they are the sole IP for a particular station. Since they're "Independent" the law does not take them into account.
This is well documented in the industry, and I'd recommend reading Pay For Play if you're interested in the topic.
I learned this from a lot of research. I am in an independent band, and so when we made our first album, I researched this to find out how to get on Commercial radio. I was very surprised to find out the truth. I have a collection of links on our website if you are interested in more articles on this topic.
By the way, as a musician, I'd rather that they abolish the laws on Payola. I want the payments to be on the table, rather than under it. After all, companies pay to get their items on shelves of grocery stores and consumer stores like Best Buy. Is it so shocking that radio is any different? There is too much money bet on bands to succeed that there would be any doubt that airtime is paid for. IPs are an unintended, legislated middleman. They serve no legitimate purpose, and in fact, make it even more expensive to get played on the radio. Let me be specific: If my band's music somehow got played on a radio station, the IP's would bill my band. If we didn't pay, they'd rip it from the playlist. IP's are the enemies of good music, and radio, and I want the artificial legislation that created them to be abolished.
When I was in highschool it was cool to be on the bus in the morning and get the driver to put on that cool hip hop or grunge station.
Now that i'm older I find myself not liking most music thats played and so I don't listen to music much. I do find that talk shows are somewhat amusing at times, but even howard stern I only find funny about once a week.
At my home I don't have a stereo, I don't have a bad-ass sound system on my computer. I have a few mp3's and a few cd's I own and listen too rarely. In my car I have cd's I listen too rarely as well.
I think in a current week I hear about 6-8 songs and listen to 1-3 partial radio shows. I just can't be bothered with that media. I don't know if it's just because I am not fond of music as much as other people are or if it's really based on something more - like the lack of quality in the mainstreams current music. But then again everyone has their own opinion on what is good. Obviously Britney Spears wouldn't be making more money than I will ever see in my entire life if people didn't like her.
Oh well life continues on for me I guess...
Ave Molech Setting
Change the radio station? The other day I was in my car, out of my top 6 stations (preset) there was not one song that I liked. So I put in a CD...problem solved.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Some of the best music I've ever heard has been on NPR stations. The daytime programming on KUT (University of Texas, Austin) is interesting if a bit too southern (obviously) and repetitive (three different performances of the same song in a row? of interest to musicologists, maybe...) for my taste. There was a station in Minnesota that I listened to for a while that had some pretty good jazz programming (can't remember their call letters but they had a repeater down by La Crosse). But the best that I've ever found are in Michigan. If you are west of Detroit you can get both WDET (Wayne State University) and WEMU (Eastern Michigan University) which have some of the best variety, jazz and blues programming I've heard anywhere, bar none. They're both on the web if you don't mind low-fi streams.
Maybe the solution to lousy radio is to try to get your local educational institution to begin running some good radio. You could always volunteer to produce some yourself, put it on tape, even syndicate it around some stations that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. If broadcasting suits you, you could be one of the people who helps fix it.
This was in the news when I was in college (95-99) with Limp Bizkit and continues on with any number of bands.
This isn't a new phenomena and isn't all that much "news" unless you were really under the impression that the radio was playing music that it likes and/or what people are calling in to hear.
It is just one big commercial enterprise anyway that forces it down your throat, playing on the human sheep tendancy to start to like it after the 500th time whether they want to or not.
Eventually the airplay makes the song overly annoying but they don't care since it potentially draws in new customers.
I haven't listened to the radio in a long time - for the same reason I would fast forward through commercials in TiVo.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Really... Radio stations are businesses. Why can't they charge whatever they want to play songs? Where is it written in the Constitution that all songs must be given equal time on the radio? Really, why is Payola even an issue?
Who gives a flying fig whether they're paid to play a Christina Aguillera song 2000 times a day? Are radio stations public utilities that are being abused by Greedy Corporate Bastards(TM)???? NO. They're private businesses. Why can't they do what they want? This is idiocy.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
It's so sad that something as wonderful and pure as music has spawned such a corrupt industry.
Next thing you know they'll be doing the same thing to love and sex.
OK, maybe I'm being too cynical. That'll never happen.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Choosing no is a valid option.
You could listen to your CD/MP3/tape player, or even just sing to yourself.
You don't need radio.
It costs $2,000 to buy a computer and eight input interface with software to make a demo record. You can buy 1,000 CDs with color labels and jewel cases for about $950. One of the best mastering engineers in the world, Rodney Mills, can be hired for $10 per song minute.
+$2,000
+$0,950
+$0,500
-------
$3,450
This is, of course, assuming you already have instruments and a couple of mics. My guess is that most of the bands who have no viable option also have no viable talent without PR and good photography.
Nothing i listen to gets airplay anyway... So my opinions wont be molded by some overpaid RIAA executive's choices..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This also happends on tv, for example on Sony (SETLA) instead of advertisementes they put the whole video of a new song
Check out Website development, maintenance and accesibility cons
There's a very easy solution to at least part of this. The company that compiles the play charts excludes anything played as an ad. In fact, I'd guess that they theoretically do this already, which is why the stupid jingle for {insert product here} isn't on the billboard 100.
That doesn't change the fact that it is convincing the sheep that the record might be good. But that's their problem.
If Saddam had done something this heinous in Iraq it would have been evidence of WoMD!
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
My roommate has been walking around singing that song constantly for the past week.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
Why is it that a MOVIE, with a much bigger budget, more staff, more expenditures can be sold on DVD for as low as $7 canadian yet I can't find any music CDs for under $10-$12 canadian?? Does this make sense? Does it cost more to produce an album of 11 music tracks, with 5 musicians a couple producers and sound engineers, than it does an entire big budget hollywood film????!
At least XM has "Playboy Radio" or something. heh.
That's kind of like listening to a golf game on the radio.
They wouldn't bother if these tactics weren't effective...
-- Note to liberals, yes please flee to Canada.
Ok, to make sure I got this right
A) Label pays radio station to play song
B) Radio station plays several less ads to play song
C) Because Song was played during ad time, Radio Station doesn't play it during regular Music time
D) Ignorant Masses (ie, Me) hear More music, Less ads, and are generally happy.
Ya know, I might be stupid, but I'll never publically condon someone bussiness practices if they make my life and life in general better.
--Cam
All jocks think about is sports. All nerds think about is sex.
You listen to what you want to listen to. If it's all the same crap pushed on you over and over, then you change the station or turn it off. Things tend to balance out that way.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Didn't the Residents already do this with their Commercial Album? It was an album of 40, one minute long, pop songs conceived under the idea that a three minute pop song only has two parts (verse and chorus) repeated three times. Thus, a stripped down pop song is only one minute long. And that's the length of a typical ad spot.
m l
"Meanwhile, in North America, the Cryptic Corporation bought forty one-minute commercial slots on KFRC-AM radio in San Francisco, and broadcast the entire album in bite-sized chunks. This stunt was criticized by some as payola, though the time purchased was quite definately commercial time, and did not contribute toward any air time based rankings."
From here: http://www.rzweb.net/albums/classic/commercial.ht
Strange... I always thought advertising was what those top 40 stations did all along. Silly me...
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
I hope they all DIE. As a fan of non-popular music, I can't stand what radio has become. Generic garbage to sell generic, untalented garbage. I never listen to anything other than the news and Howard Stern. A big fuck you to ALL corporate record execs and anyone in between.
PBS (Frontline) did a GREAT series abou;the status of the music biz today. Head over to pbs.org and take a look. Some great info.
IANAL either, but if you have a few seconds at the start or at the end of each of your songs that goes something like "this song was kindly provided by [sponsor name]", then it would probably be construed as an ad, where as having songs without those messages would be hard to prove as ads.
If you don't want to tour, and you don't want to promote your own band, you pay very dearly to have someone else do it, because it's a major gamble. I listen to local groups and smaller labels because they believe in their own craft enough to produce good work _and_ promote it.
You don't deserve anything because you're in a band, even if your sound is earth-shatteringly brilliant. Work for it or stop playing gigs. Pretty damn simple.
All that's changed is that they're being more honest? What's the problem? We all knew they were paying for play anyway.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If you are tired of the RIAA controlling what you listen to, then learn how to sing.
I get a lot more enjoyment out of listening to my friends sing (and singing with them) old songs, sad songs, happy songs, silly song, whatever, than out of my music CDs.
Its live, its free, its even good sometimes.
So drink a few beers, gather round a camp fire, close your eyes and sing. Or play a guitar, learn to drum, pick up a kazoo, banjo, or tamborine, or even how to clap in time.
We have become a world that doesn't know how to entertain ourselves. If it isn't shiny, plastic, flashing, miniature, or if our neighbors (you know, those people on TV) don't have it then we don't want it.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
the labels have two legs to stand on here...
The difference between your examples is that in one case, the labels (the people who are given permission to control the distribution and public performance of the music) choose to pay someone to play. If I distribute mp3 of someone else's song to a wide audience (e.g., Kazaa, etc.), I am making a choice that rightfully belongs to the person/entity who has the copyright.
There are a lot of things wrong with the system of music (control of airplay and concerts by labels/Clear Channel, indefinitely extended copyrights for large corporations, suits tried by legal muscle rather than law, etc.) but the principle at stake here is whether the copyright holder has the right to control the public performance/distribution of their music. Since that right is the domain of copyright law, what is at stake is the existence of copyright. I believe that while copyright is misused, its absence will also be misused, to greater detriment of individual artists, replacing very limited protection for people with novel works with no protection at all. If copyrights exist, the copyright holder has sole control of public distribution and play of their work (until the copyright period is up - theoretically "a limited time", in effect, limited to only three generations...). They have that right, I don't.
There is so much good music available in so many different genres that you couldn't hear it all if you listened continuously and never heard each song more that once. But to make a sale, the buyer must like it and be acutely aware of it. That awareness can only come from extraordinary quality or repetition. The companies are buying repetition. Merely being good isn't enough to make a sale.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
hmmm... but is it legal to copy these advertisements?
Pete
Anyone else see the correlation between this article, and the wiki article the other day? Both are spamming their product on a public forum to enhance their artificial ranking....
You mean to tell me, that we made a law, and giant corperations stepped around it like a pile of shit in the road??
*DrugCheese rants*
How comes a song played as an add counts for the billboard charts? If that was so the chart would be full of McDonalds, Chevy and Budweiser commercials. WIth the airplay commercials get on different genres and such they have to outplay even the latest Shania song!!
Bud
So now that the record companies got rid of Napster (the origional one), they are paying for the exposure they used to get for free. Now doesn't that look stupid?
I'm really fucking sick
Of Beck and 311,
And Marylin Manson,
I wish someone would break his fucking neck.
And what about Bush
And lame-ass Oasis?
Hey, talk about pretentious,
Why don't they just blow England off the map?
Every now and then
I turn it on again
But it's plain to see that
The radio still sucks.
Every now and then
I turn it on again
But it's plain to see that
The radio still sucks.
Lyrics from "The Radio Still Sucks" by The Ataris
Record labels are in the business to make money. Big deal.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
it does show the hypocrisy of what the RIAA is trying to accomplish. On the one hand, they're suing to prevent you from distributing the song; on the other hand, they're paying radio stations to distribute the same song.
Sort of OT, but here's something I never really understood; the notion that banging people over the head with something makes it...popular? What's up with that? If I'm listening to the radio, and the station is playing the same 32 songs all day, I change the station. If I start to hear a song all the time to the point were hearing the first 8 notes immediately fills my head with the entire song to the exclusion of all other thought, I change the station. That kind of over-n-over-n-over-n-WTF-again gets on my *nerves* man.
But I guess I actually *listen* to the radio when it is on and I take control of the thing when it annoys me. I also pay attention to other aspects of my environment, like who is walking behind me and strange sounds outside. It's an instinct for self preservation, a hold over from ancient times. Protects me from surprise, and I guess from being brainwashed as well, cuz none of my clothes have designer logos on them.
Peoples' instincts must be dulled to nothing. Their minds idling over like mill wheels, round and round grinding the same grist all day. Why does anyone put up with being treated like a mass of thoughtless pulp by hungry, tentacled corporations who want your money, and hence your labor?
Is this a hazard that comes with soft living? Or maybe 15,000 years of evolution without meaningful predators coming after you all the time? Or did TV and consumerism really, finally, destroy our minds?
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
advertising ain't cheap! when you buy a major-lable cd, they're using (I would guess a big chunk of) the money you spend to pay for that "advertising."
It seems pretty obvious, but if a song is being played as a paid advertisement, it shouldn't count toward the statistics that go into determining the "charts". Duh. What next, ads for Budweiser on the Billboard top 10?
> radio stations such as NPR are still great sources for news
NPR lobbied against Low Power FM radio stations. This limits competition and supports the status quo of radio consolidation (Their brother PBS network acknowledges radio consolidation as a problem, how ironic!). Just something to remember when they start one of their pledge drives.
Has been doing this all week! It's pissing me off! Same song over and over. It's funny how thier story changes when introducing the recording company.
The dingo ate my sig.
A Discourse On The Commodification Of Music Or A Call To Arms by Demosthenes / FCI PART 1: DEFINITION/STATE OF THE UNION Music: an expression of humanity, escape, a soundtrack to life, deep passion.... Purpose: to share ideas, stories, and create a common bond between peoples and groups of people.... In the year 2002, the practices of the music industry have gone astray from developing artists and supporting a musical community. Instead, priorities have shifted to create easy-to-swallow compositions and commodify trends in order to simply reach the capitalist ultimatum of creating wealth most completely and efficiently. Music is commodified under the rules of large media companies, and as many have heard before, "an album as a complete body of work by an artist" isn't as important as its internal reference as a "unit." Note that a unit is also what cereal companies consider a box of cereal in your grocery store: simply units to consume, defecate, and throw away. Now, this revelation didn't come to me without experience. I, for one, had the thought that perhaps things truly were different, that an artist can truly function within the framework of the culture-machines that we have today. My experience had me existing for a short while in the media Babylon of Los Angeles. Surrounded by many other souls attempting to live their dreams, achieve their creative nirvana, and, yes, make boatloads of money. The actual climate coupled with the mental landscape created a virtual world of escapism where people could expose their eccentricities for all to see. This insular city had its own way of thinking and perceiving the world. Seeing that the general populace of Earth consumes what is created out of this area like starving wolves, it is unavoidable not to be under the influence of its haze of grandiosity. I didn't realize it at the time, but even I got caught up in the currents of achieving "success" along with the myriad masses around me, drunk on visions and possibilities as if the gods slipped ethereal ambrosia into my water. I was whisked away to a magnificent studio with a larger budget than anything I have ever been a part of musically, simply to create a three-song demonstration for the higher-ups to decide whether the music I was a part of was a viable investment. Our "demo" was a well-produced masterpiece of rock n' roll with Pro-Tooled vocals and spliced choruses; we were the perfect versions of our selves, humans that make no flaws. We flew to New York City and were put up in a fancy designer hotel in Times Square to showcase ourselves for the important decision makers and strategically meet with others in the "industry." I experienced the ego-stroking that you only hear about but never really believe is reality: for example, a man, sitting across from me, looking me straight into the eyes with fervor in his voice, braying, "I am going to take you to the top ... because I WIN." This and many other catch phrases were some of the shameless mental foreplay tactics I experienced. We played games with A&R types and others like a game of courtship with a woman, where you can let your thoughts of fondness remain hidden. They moved deftly to avoid commitments yet brought us flowers and lusty chocolates.
The moment of truth while in the den of wolves came when one particular shiny-headed higher-up, who referred to pop icon Brittney Spears by first-name basis "Brittney" (the following quote is enhanced if read with a tenor smoker's voice and a slight New York accent), said to us, "Give us the song ... then do your art." In that moment, I silently thanked him for his honesty and understood the game and its formula for success. No matter who you are and how passionate you are, you must first provide what the culture-sellers want in the form of their current formula of composition and a sound loaded with sonic MSG. To make a long story short, things deteriorated after that and we weren't the next investment for whatever reason. I split from this musical group and went back happily to w
They bought 40 one-minute chunks of commercial airtime on KFRC-AM radio in San Francisco, and played every track of their brilliant 1980 LP The Commercial Album.
"Commercial Radio" was the perfect format for The Commercial Album because every track is exactly 60 seconds long.
Viva The Residents!
That's certainly the case here (New Zealand). A consumer affairs show (Fair Go) that hosts an "ad awards" episode every year has to get permission for the ads to be repeated on the show; once, when they were unsuccessful for a particular ad, it was shown as "CENSORED" instead. Not that it won anything :-)
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
I may be alone in this, but I'd rather hear some crap new song than another McDonald's commercial...
...used to listen to the FM music radio stations all the time about 10-15 years ago, when I was a kid...
Your still a kid!
(Pardon the double post, this is the properly formatted version. Why doesn't /. recognize line breaks? Errr.)
A Discourse On The Commodification Of Music
Or
... because I WIN." This and many other catch phrases were some of the shameless mental foreplay tactics I experienced. We played games with A&R types and others like a game of courtship with a woman, where you can let your thoughts of fondness remain hidden. They moved deftly to avoid commitments yet brought us flowers and lusty chocolates.
... then do your art." In that moment, I silently thanked him for his honesty and understood the game and its formula for success. No matter who you are and how passionate you are, you must first provide what the culture-sellers want in the form of their current formula of composition and a sound
A Call To Arms
by Demosthenes / FCI
PART 1: DEFINITION/STATE OF THE UNION
Music: an expression of humanity, escape, a soundtrack to life, deep passion.... Purpose: to share ideas, stories, and create a common bond between peoples and groups of people....
In the year 2002, the practices of the music industry have gone astray from developing artists and supporting a musical community. Instead, priorities have shifted to create easy-to-swallow compositions and commodify trends in order to simply reach the capitalist ultimatum of creating wealth most completely and efficiently. Music is commodified under the rules of large media companies, and as many have heard before, "an album as a complete body of work by an artist" isn't as important as its internal reference as a "unit." Note that a unit is also what cereal companies consider a box of cereal in your grocery store: simply units to consume, defecate, and throw away.
Now, this revelation didn't come to me without experience. I, for one, had the thought that perhaps things truly were different, that an artist can truly function within the framework of the culture-machines that we have today. My experience had me existing for a short while in the media Babylon of Los Angeles. Surrounded by many other souls attempting to live their dreams, achieve their creative nirvana, and, yes, make boatloads of money. The actual climate coupled with the mental landscape created a virtual world of escapism where people could expose their eccentricities for all to see. This insular city had its own way of thinking and perceiving the world. Seeing that the general populace of Earth consumes what is created out of this area like starving wolves, it is unavoidable not to be under the influence of its haze of grandiosity. I didn't realize it at the time, but even I got caught up in the currents of achieving "success" along with the myriad masses around me, drunk on visions and possibilities as if the gods slipped ethereal ambrosia into my water.
I was whisked away to a magnificent studio with a larger budget than anything I have ever been a part of musically, simply to create a three-song demonstration for the higher-ups to decide whether the music I was a part of was a viable investment. Our "demo" was a well-produced masterpiece of rock n' roll with Pro-Tooled vocals and spliced choruses; we were the perfect versions of our selves, humans that make no flaws.
We flew to New York City and were put up in a fancy designer hotel in Times Square to showcase ourselves for the important decision makers and strategically meet with others in the "industry." I experienced the ego-stroking that you only hear about but never really believe is reality: for example, a man, sitting across from me, looking me straight into the eyes with fervor in his voice, braying, "I am going to take you to the top
The moment of truth while in the den of wolves came when one particular shiny-headed higher-up, who referred to pop icon Brittney Spears by first-name basis "Brittney" (the following quote is enhanced if read with a tenor smoker's voice and a slight New York accent), said to us, "Give us the song
Believe it or not, slacker - its not on Kazaa WTF do you think 'can't find it anywhere' means?
Support independant radio.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
You have a copy of such a contract? I'd be interested in reading one. No I'm not going to sign those with any record label, I'd just like to know what's written in them.
- Voice of Ambience -
sure you can, but it still won't be legal:)
Of course, if you live in the UK, you can listen to the BBC. No adverts, so all you hear is what the DJs like. Not in the UK? Listen Online
How do you figure that? There are various rating systems in use in the radio industry (Arbitron is the best known).
to a 10 record deal when she was 12, it REQUIRED her to have all 10 albums go platinum.
Her parents grabbed the advance, divvied it up in divorce court, and left her with the obligations.
Curb Records was forced in court to cancel the contract at 5 records. Great life if you don't weaken.
Having sheep call in and request what gets pushed, makes it easy to hide this fact, but try requesting something "just" outside of the current market segement of a station and see if it gets played. (try requesting #45 on a top 40 station or popular local independent musicians (the kind that can still sell a a few thousand tickets per show))
Payola is nothing new, and only in in its most obvious forms has it actually gone away. There's a reason stations give away free CDs, concert tickets, memerobelia and get exclusive interviews with artists when they come to town and its not because the station has payed any money (or, in lager markets, offered more money than a competetor) for it.
Billboard cares nothing about this form of pushing, why would they care about something more obvious or tangable?
Secondly, its not Billboard's job to filter in why a song gets a spin. If there was a sizable demand for the why a song gets spun by the sheep-driven market footing their bills, you can bet there would be a little asterisk or a non-advertisement version of the charts to coincide with what they have now. As it stands, its just more effort to produce and subtracts value from their outcome, becasue it complicates the sheep-ready simplicity of what they are reporting.
The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.
Haven't you all seen the Josie & the Pussycats documentary?
Dustin - A different story...
Why bother, clear channel found a legal way around it. Buy the radio stations, issue the top ten list based on AIRTIME, not sales, issue play lists to your radio stations, then sit back touting the TOP 10 list that you created along with verifiable but meaningless measurements. The masses of Sheeple with flock to the record stores to consume.... Venal, Greedy, and short-sighted but still technically legal :(
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Yeah, that's what I'm guessing... but there may be some gray area since many companies encourage the sharing of commercials (probably not though!).
On the other hand, the Kellner argument says that ads are our way of "paying" for the otherwise free content, so I guess by listening to "music ads" all day, we would really be paying the RIAA extra !
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
So its a record company buying fake airtime to promote fake popularity so the look better on their own fake ratings system.
While I don't make any explicit agreements with musicians whose music is played on the radio or their labels, I am under the rule of the government, and the gov't is the guarantor of copyright. Since gov't is explicitly given the right to govern copyright, and they chose to give those rights to authors of works of their designated agents, attempting to assert the right to redistribute a work not only infringes on the right of authors and their agents (with whom I made no explicit agreement) but the government which is specifically given those rights (and with whom I do have explicit legal obligations). Violation of copyright by distributing a work without permission violates not only the rights of authors to whom were lent those rights, but the agency (the government, or the people) in whom those rights are vested. Ultimately, it replaces a corporate good (the availabilty of works to all) for an individual good (the availability of a work to me).
Copyrights have many flaws as currently written and enforced, but the concept of copyright exists so that all can profit from ideas, rather than just a few. If upon transmission, the restriction of copyright on the use of works is negated, then few things will be transmitted, hurting everyone in the process. If copyright law is bastardized to the point of unrecognizability, it will either cease to be obeyed (thus undermining the govt's authority and negating their ability to do other things they wish) or will be rewritten, or people will accept it and we will fade into oblivion.
I disagree with your underlying premise - I believe that copyright as a concept is sound, even if copyright law as currently composed (and alloyed with the DMCA) is not.
Well, Geffen wouldn't mind, but Elektra would probably be pretty pissed off....
And that's a good thing, because they announce the title and artist of the song. I hate it when the radio plays a song I like, and it's hell trying to figure out the artist/title so I can buy it. I'd have bought a lot more records over the years if I'd been able to figure out what band performed them.
I can go downtown on any given night, pay a small cover at any number of a dozen or more bars
Where can a minor go to hear live music designed to be listened to by minors?
Have you been checking it out in the last 2 years?
Can I listen to Internet radio in my car or on the bus? Until I can, Internet radio will never take off. See, the major labels have a captive audience who won't listen to anything but FCC-licensed FM radio stations whose playlists are bought and paid for.
Where can one get something like KCRW in a moving vehicle outside of California? Has mobile Internet access progressed to that point?
the RIAA does not own any labels. They are a trade group, not a record company.
The OPEC does not own any refineries. It is a trade group, not a refinery.
Yet OPEC and RIAA still manage to dictate terms in their respective industries.
The term "free trade" refers to an agreement between governments. The United States typically uses "free trade" to refer to changes to copyright law and to patent law that benefit the largest American corporations at the expense of everybody else in the world.
First of all, independants don't pay them to play songs!
Second, the RIAA has made the legal requirements on stations so onereous that they ORDER DJs not to play "unauthorized" music...because the lawyers can't prove it's cleared by the RIAA and they would still have to pay royalties on it! but to who? get it?
Third, most radio stations are corperate owned nowdays...they play a strict playlist scientifically developed by corperate marketing to be properly balanced with political correctness, teen angst, and homogeny. DJs playing their own mix would make the company look bad!
That same RIAA trouble is why there are few commercial stations that play independant music. The RIAA has made the playlist requirements so steep that your lawyers basically tell you not to do it because the "garage" bands aren't signed with a RIAA aproved label so you're playing with fire....it's akin to how the BSA operates in the software world. You can't track royalties, you can't confirm ownership, you can't submit the song to Billboard [because they're in cahoots!] The only stations to get away with it are the college stations that have "educational" exemptions from the most onereous requirements...and are somewhat expected to be playing crap...that way people don't listen to them!
And, since I opened the piece of garbage, I can't return it.
Yes you can. Exchange it for the same title, come back, and return that. If they won't let you return the exchange copy, then go back to the store and exchange every damn same title the store gives you. The store's parent will eventually notice the title's defect rate shooting up.
So drink a few beers
Not everybody is of legal drinking age. To learn about the unintended consequences, see my journal entry.
gather round a camp fire, close your eyes and sing.
Then your problem will be with BMI and ASCAP and SESAC, when they bill you for singing copyrighted songs. The recording isn't the only thing copyrighted; the sheet music itself is subject to a monopoly.
Don't forget that a lot of us spend our day at the office in front of a net connected computer.
"A lot of us" don't control music buying decisions. The high school students that either buy a lot of CDs or control their parents' CD purchases have to listen to whatever music is playing on the school bus's commercial FM radio because their school prohibits carrying an electronic music player (iPod, Walkman, or whatever) onto the school property that they are obligated by mandatory school attendance law to be transported to and from.
I don't understand why people think that the orderly, predictable nature of payola is somehow worse than having some random druggie DJ choosing overproduced songs based on his or her own tastes...we all have different tastes, and for me, having my ears proxied by some random stranger who just weaseled his way into a corporate DJ job is really no more attractive to me than being advertised to. Hint: Both options suck. Turn off the radio. Didn't you see the movie Airheads? You're just mad because you've been suckers since Motown, believing that some young, pure, messianic songwriter has just magically ascended to the top of the heap and into your view, when really every single band who has ever participated in the music industry has blood on their hands. Yes, even your special favorite one. Your hero is a whore.
:( :( :( Aurally indentured ambivalence!! Consumptively co-opted codependency!! Mrr! Me0w Me0w!
Listen to music made by people you know. If their music sucks, meet more people. This is the indy way. People listened to folk music, made by friends and family for thousands of years, and now suddenly as of the 20th century, everyone has been made tremendously lazy due to marketed convenience, and people act like "good" music can only come from a giant corporate juggernaut, and to make matters worse, this *elective* juggernaut needs to operate the way I want it to, or I am going to whine!
In my car, the radio is what happens when I eject the CD. Fuck a radio.
If you don't like the idea of a commercial radio station engaging in COMMERCE, then don't LISTEN to a COMMERCIAL radio station. Listen to one of the many not for profit radio stations out there like http://www.ipmradio.com or http://www.di.fm/.
Check this one out as well:
http://www.wweek.com/html/cover041598.html
The images are a bit borked, but still. Wow, that's from 1998.
This isn't exactly news. It's been happening for a long time.
If by "success" you mean "widespread radio play and subsequent financial comfort". THEY PAY THE RADIO TO PLAY THEIR SONGS. That means the little guy is NEVER going to get played, no matter how good they are or how hard they work, or how much the disc jockey likes them, unless they have the money to pay the radio themselves. Forget "promotion", it's payola, period. You can't fight that except with equal amounts of money.
Freedom: "I won't!"
So drink a few beers, gather round a camp fire, close your eyes and sing. Or play a guitar, learn to drum, pick up a kazoo, banjo, or tamborine, or even how to clap in time.
"That's it man. Game over, man! Game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
"How 'bout we build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? How 'bout we try that?"
Freedom: "I won't!"
Real rock stars get chicks, and there are plenty of chicks with good jobs!
If a sponsored record is properly disclaimed, no secrecy exists and it is not payola. Period. It's not a loophole in the law: it *is* the law.
Sponsored records are a risky play for stations, but not because of questions of ethics. They're risky because, by definition, most of these songs are too weak to be incorporated in a station's regular playlist. Radio market competition is pretty aggressive, and burdening your record rotations with deadwood ain't bright. People usually tune out when they hear unfamiliar or inferior music, which is why radio stations spend millions each year on music research.
Radio is so competitive and business has been so depressed since 9/11 (it's better this year) that station budgets are razor-thin. The first thing to go is usually the Promotions budget. If a station accepts a sponsored record -- and this practice is pretty unusual, in my experience -- the money usually goes into the Promotions line. That way, we can buy the free tshirts, stickers, and the freebies you demand when we show up in the station van for a public appearance.
Our company experimented with various (properly identified) national music promotions a couple years back. They didn't work out too well, and most of station managers and programmers are unwilling to compromise their ratings with weak music. That's because YOU won't listen if we do. And your listenership is how we sell advertising to keep our stations on the air and our people paid.
Would you like to influence our playlists? Go buy music instead of illegally swapping it. We actually look at sales figures when making playlist decisions.
As for the spins sponsored records receive: who do you think they influence? Other radio folks, most of whom are bright enough to recognize when a weak record is getting an unusual number of plays. So buying record sponsorships is really targeted at stimulating direct sales, not further airplay.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
It's nothing new -- Limp Bizkit did this in 1998 . (Try Googling for '"limp bizkit" payola commercial' for more.)
I guess that might work for/on some people, but if I'm listening to a station for a length of time and they keep playing the same damn song over and over (like once an hour or more frequently), I change the station in anger. If that station does that frequently, I'll mentally black list it. So, the only time this would work on me is if I really really liked the song and that's not likely. I mean, if the label has to pay someone just to get a DJ to play it, how good can it really be?
Furry cows moo and decompress.
If I ever meet up with a certain snooping postman, he'll get his nutsack tied in a bowtie. As much as I dislike snooping postmen, this is not the reason. The reason is having to hear the stupid song he inspired about 300 times a day wherever there's a radio.
Seriously... and they wonder why record sales are down. In the past 6 months, I've listened to the radio for about a couple hours a day for maybe 3 days now. And I'm already sick of every song.
That's barely 16.5 times per day. New "top 40" songs are played more than once per hour on many top 40 stations around the country, and this isn't counting promos and ads either. The rating system that determines top 40 songs is based on -- you guessed it -- airplay! So songs that are played a lot earn a higher rating in the top 40 and, well, they get played a lot.
You can see how this can get to be a nuisance.
http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Music/9807/07/payol a/
I've heard other songs played this way: framed as a commercial, with a different voice than the DJ announcing the band, track, and "presented by Rottenlabel" or something like that over the beginning and end of the song. I wouldn't call it common, but I've definitely heard it a few times and it's never been Limp Bizkit nor Avril Lavigne.
Can't say I really like it, but it wouldn't surprise me if the practice gets still more commonplace.
Next weekend rolls around, and you plan to play her song only 75 times this time. Now Avril's puppetmasters pay you for one ad slot which consists of... her song. Great. Now you only have to play it 74 times for free, and you get PAID to do the 75th.
Cause you only wanted to play it 75 times in the first place.
It's sort of like when some rich alumnus donates $3 million to a large university and says it must be put into, say, the English department. Okay, says the president, in goes your three million, thank you, and out comes a different three million that DIDN'T have strings attached. That can go back into the general budget, to be divvied up at the discretion of the university. So the alumnus is out three million, and his pet cause didn't go anywhere.
These labels should, presumably, get exactly the same benefit paying for a two-minute commercial slot and telling the station to fill it with whatever they want.
Also In Chicago but not a long time resident. Mostly I keep the dial on NPR but could you mention the frequency's for those stations you mentioned?
Also curious about what stations on the chicago dial are still independent.
Must ... gouge .. out .. eardrums!!
Yeah. That would sell bigtime! Wonder why this honest industry has chosen to this all backwards...
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Explain to me again... Under such conditions... Whhy the hell do you bother even owning a TV at all?!?
I'd feel screwed over just possesing a TV under such circumstances! Thank god laws are a lot less commercialist-friendly where I live.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
It's still a bad practice.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
The A+R man (and yeah, they're pretty much all men) decides his record company really needs a new teen star, or perhaps a boyband, or whatever. He draws up a contract, and goes looking for victims.
The victims in question receive this contract. Their parents are told to sign the contract, and Little Johnny/Stephanie/whatever will get a start in the music business.
Don't sign the contract? A+R Man moves to the next potential victim. The record company is holding absolutely all of the cards in this situation. However, all that said, parent is better off refusing to sign, even though little Johnny/Stephanie won't realize it at first. But, victims will be found.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
First of all, although many songs are covered by copyright (including, darn them, "Happy Birthday")
The good news: Sure, Snopes seems to think "Happy Birthday to You" is still copyrighted and owned by Time Warner. But it may not be different enough from an earlier song called "Good Morning to All", whose U.S. copyright has already expired, to be considered a distinct work worthy of a separate copyright.
That is why you don't have to pay a royalty when ... you sing while gathered around the campfire with friends.
The bad news: The definition of "publicly" in 17 USC 101 leaves room for better-paid lawyers to twist a judge's conception of the facts:
Unless you have a fence around your campfire site, then the place is conceivably "open to the public." The music publisher will also argue in court over who is a "social acquaintance" and who is not.
As for the rest, I look forward to the day ASCAP/BMI etc. goes after a Girl Scout troop in the state park.
Have you been puffing the magic dragon and ignoring this pair of newspaper articles claiming that ASCAP attacked the Girl Scouts in 1996 and later backed off after negative press? Most other organizations wouldn't have near as much clout as the Scouts in negotiating such a no-cost performance license.