Slashdot Mirror
Radio May Have To Pay To Play
devjj writes "Ars Technica reports that Congress is considering two bills that will remove the exemption terrestrial radio broadcasters currently enjoy that allows them to broadcast music without compensating the artists or labels for it. In the current dispensation only songwriters get paid. The National Association of Broadcasters is furious at the RIAA, which is pushing repeal of the exemptions, and has responded by agreeing that artists need better compensation — and is asking Congress to investigate modern recording contracts. "
It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if revenue deserted you
Nobody knows where my moolah has gone
But total control left the same time
Why were they streaming these songs
Pay us or pay a big fine
It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if revenue deserted you
Then all my records keep dancing all night
But leave me alone for a while
'Til money's dancing in my wallet
I've got no reason to smile
It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if revenue deserted you
NAB and the listener just walked thru the door
Like a queen with her king
Oh what a birthday surprise
NAB's wearing his MP3 thing
It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if revenue deserted you
Oh-oh-oh It's my property and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to.....
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
This is good in my humble opinion, perhaps it is time for radio to stop playing RIAA's JUNK and start playing REAL music from REAL artists and compensate them directly without the MA****... er, I mean the record companies as middle hand..
Sadly, this is a no-win case in Congress either way. With Republicans in the hands of big business and Democrats in the hands of Hollywood, the possibility of anyone looking out for the consumer is pretty much nil. Calls for reform usually only end up with even more onerous legislation.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
if they let us download the music for free, and take their income from somewhere else.
The RIAA is again shooting itself in the foot. Why should radio stations pay for the right to advertise music which essentially is what radio stations do, provide free advertising for artists.
I thought I've seen it by now with the music industry. I realize I am not the target audience for them anymore because I'm an old fart, but I can't imagine where potential buyers are going to hear music they want to buy. MTV doesn't play videos, they'll come after you if you have the music on Myspace, etc... This is turning into pure comedy gold. Glad I have my set list of music I'm working at filling out, because I have no idea where I'd even begin to look to listen to anything new if this goes through.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Has the entire industry gone insane? Maybe it's a generational thing, but with today's one-hit wonders, there's very little in the current marketplace that I'm interested in buying. The ONLY advertisement the industry can count on is radio air-play. If broadcasters are charged, then we'll be forced to listen to more adverts, which in turn will prompt me to discontinue radio as an entertainment medium.
they will never "get it", will they?
You knew eventually these bastards would get so greedy that they'd start devouring their own tail.
Sad that we couldn't have had clear-thinking political leadership that weren't whores to special interests, to kill it as it should have been killed.
But as long as they end up attacking themselves out of existence, I guess I shouldn't complain too much.
-Styopa
One of the most important pieces of cinematic work in the past 100 years: "We [the record labels] have to do something to protect our phoney balogne jobs!"
And here is an example of what I always tell people about myself -- that my mind is open and I can change opinions the instant I see my old one is wrong.
When I first read this article my only thought was "goodbye college radio"... but your point is so very true. This will shoot the 'AAs squarely in the foot. Radio stations can't afford to pay for music. Even ClearChannel etc won't pony up for this. This may just clear the way to get the forest of unwanted garbage music out of our face so we can see the few trees of good music that are out there!
Sorry, I'll come up with a better metaphor after my coffee...
-Vort
OK now I feel guilty railing against the RIAA's war against internet radio and P2P, always pointing out that they're like radio only the RIAA can't control them, and that all you have to do to get all the free top 40 MP3s you want is plug your headphone jack into the radio and sample.
But then again perhaps this will herald the advent of "indie music" (i.e., anything not produced by an RIAA label) on the radio.
Record labels or Clear Channel and their ilk, who to root against? A pox on both their houses.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
A small part of me wants RIAA to succeed in this - heresy I know. The notion is that if they win, terrestrial radio broadcasters will all but stop putting the mainstream music on the air and cater more towards local or indie artists, since they would be most likely to trade profit for exposure. Not only would this give those artists the chance they could desperately be wanting, but in a perfect world, would force the studios and labels to see 'the error of their ways'. It's a pipedream, but as most dreams are, it's a happy one.
All radio broadcasts should pay the same amount in royalties to the artists (and if necessary, the RIAA). All radio broadcasts includes: terrestrial AND internet. A radio broadcast is a radio broadcast, no matter the medium. /Logic, its cool.
when the record labels paid the radio stations to play their stuff?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Well, most of it. Fairly neutral about whether the labels get a royalty from airplay but the performers certainly should.
Ya know, I hear this theme every single time there is a story related to the recording industry/file sharing/copyright/etc. RIAA music sucks! It's all pop crap! Listen to indie artists!
Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap. I happen to mostly listen to modern/hard rock. Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members. In fact I'm hard pressed to think of a genre of music that doesn't have at least one or two prominent bands/artists signed to RIAA members.
Point being that it's kind of stupid to say that all RIAA music sucks just because we find their business practices abhorrent and unethical. I do my best to avoid giving RIAA money (I never buy CDs or directly pay for music) but they doubtless still make some off me (Pandora pays them royalties). I hope that more artists follow a direct to the customer model (Radiohead is giving it a try) and I think that overtime the big labels will become less relevant. In the meantime though I'm not going to avoid music that I like.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
With all our modern technology, though, musicians could make money with only one or two guys helping them with distribution, even worldwide distribution, and take home a much larger percentage of the profit. As long as a quiet place to record the music can be located, even someone with almost no financial backing could potentially sell a lot of music. If only there weren't people fighting such ideas...
Palm trees and 8
o/~ Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give?
Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yoh, o/~
And by net standards, the o/~ means that I have sung those lyrics. OH SHI-
*waves hello to the overbearing, everso-*snirk*-vigilant RIAA overlords monitoring every insubstantial thing*
well, we have college radio stations up in canada and up here broadcasters have to pay royalties to composers for play.
canada has an organization call 'socan' that collects royalties from radio stations (among other places) and distributes them to artists. from socan's web page:
"[we collect] licence fees, as set by the Copyright Board of Canada, from anyone playing or broadcasting live or recorded music."
how those royalties get disbursed is a bit trickier, but i do know folks in local bands who have gotten cheques (usually in the sub-ten-dollar range, but hey, they're pretty much unknown local acts).
and college radio does just fine up here.
2 1337 4 u!
we need more pirate radio not controlled by corporate media anyway, for everything from news and information to music too...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
See The New Yorker for more information.
All the RIAA is going to do is find a way to pay the radio stations what they pay in royalties, and then charge that cost back to the artists via some "promotional fee" or other such garbage.
The only solution to getting artists paid is the death of the RIAA and its component companies.
If it means not having the same crap on rotation foisted into my ears at least 10 times a day, I'm all for it.
From my point of view listening to music is way overrated. Everyone is supposedly listening to tons of music all the time and from my POV the music became some sort of a drug, just another escape from reality. You've got your music on your MP3 players, your radio, TV, CDs, DVDs, Vinyls, tapes and 8tracks ;] Are you all constantly listening to it for real? I prefer talk show radio, where I am (Toronto) the talk shows are really good, talking about local and global stuff, allowing the listeners to call in and express an opinion. To me this is way more entertaining than constantly repeating noise pollution that passes for music. Even if the music is good, there is no reason to be obsessed about it.
I wish there was more talk shows and various educational stuff on the radio instead.
You can't handle the truth.
Good, now hopefully we can have more interesting TALK radio, everything from O&A to Rush. Should be plenty of room for all kinds of radio shows.
If this passes, we're going to get a LOT more crappy talk-radio.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Does it not seem like the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot with this? I always thought one of the main points of playing tunes on the radio was advertising for the artists, enticing people to buy the whole album.
If people stop hearing new songs on the radio, then the RIAA will really see a dip in CD sales. This is just more proof that the RIAA is way out of touch with how the market works.
I got nothin'
"I'm hard pressed to think of a genre of music that doesn't have at least one or two prominent bands/artists signed to RIAA members."
I haven't run across a single group doing Celtic music that's signed to a major label...
Although my tastes even in this niche genre seem to be rather narrow, so who knows, maybe some of the more mainstream groups have XD
Sorry, but artists just like NICKLEBACK are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
As others have said this is the RIAA killing itself in a mad dash to grab money. It's like Congress raising taxes during a recession. You suffer, not us. If this passes (and I doubt it will) every music station should have a day of reckoning. A day of no music and nothing but call=ins to discuss this with their listeners. We're simply not going to pay this and not going to placate an industry we helped create. The RIAA will lose even more money and continue to blame piracy.
Honestly, I hope this passes. If it does, it will be the end of music radio as we know it and finally the record companies will understand they've slit their own throats. Clear Channel and the like won't like the music industry cutting so heavily into their profits and they'll do whatever they can to defeat this. Two heads of the same monster fighting can't be that bad, right?
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
So, I guess now most slogans will be "30 minutes of solid comercials". Or all stations will become talk / news.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
"RIAA killed the radio star..."
Coming soon to a radio station near you! Oh, wait...
when the artist starts getting big, somebody has to step in and help, and they have to get paid.
How about when the artists start getting big, they have to pay somebody else. Then the money flows from the artist to the support (distribution, marketing, etc) and the artist gets paid if there is any left over from an employer's standpoint. This will actually help keep things much more honest, and force artists to use the system that works (for distribution) instead of the broken ones.
This arrangement would put the artists squarely in control. The only issue, is how many artists could manage doing this themselves. After all, the industry parasiting them is technical the distribution, marketing, etc portion hiring the artists. This ensure the artists are no more than store clerks in the chain.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
You're confusing performance royalties with copyright royalties. All radio stations, Canadian and US, pay performance royalties - about 1.7% of revenue. College stations typically pay a flat fee of $450/year. RIAA wants stations to pay, in addition to performance royalties, copyright royalties of about 7.5% of revenue - with low income stations paying $5000/year.
...I read TFA. It says the payments are to be in the form of a flat fee, per station, per year. That means that if a radio station wants to be able to ever play any RIAA-artist music, even just once a year, they have to pay the same fee as a station that plays the stuff all the time. Given that circumstance, there's no special motivation to seek out non-RIAA artists.
Of course, the article is short. The actual text of the bill may include a pay-per-play option that would encourage stations to drop most RIAA-artist music while still retaining the ability to play a bit of it, on occasion. I don't know because I haven't read the bill so, as always, the devil's in the details.
Somehow, I doubt an RIAA-backed bill would include a sensible measure like this, though. Even they aren't stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot like that. Are they?
Anybody got a link to the actual bill text?
I've read a few comments here stating if this comes to pass how radio stations will start playing indie content. I don't think that will happen. Radio will continue as it was the only difference being the cost of doing business will have gone up. The price of advertising on radio will go up and in some small way that cost will trickle down to the average consumer.
I think you're right that RIAA endorsed labels do have many respectable bands signed, unfortunately. However - and I don't mean to insult your taste here - You should be aware that Nickelback is almost certainly the kind of [RIAA crap] band that the grandparent was talking about. Many people regard them as total sellouts and possessive to no actual talent or creativity, at least in the circles in which I run. There was the Digg story a while back that pointed to this interesting site: evidence of similarities between Nickelback songs. Regardless of whether you like them or not, they are a hit generator, which is exactly the kind of thing that they play on pop/rock radio. Anyway keep up the good analysis; just use better examples like Radiohead (which you also used). They are distributing In Rainbows under a label associated with the RIAA according to RIAA Radar.
have an article about this?
So the RIAA wants to charge radio stations to advertise their product for them.
This is so dumb because not only is this the labels making them selves less useful to their clients. The Labels do 3 things for an artist, they promote them, they loan them money to cover recording costs, and they control access to other artists and producers an artist might want to collaborate with, and of those one of the most important these days is the promotion. But now the labels are looking to sour their vice like grip on radio, which is going to hurt their ability to promote, and is going to provide an opening for their competitors.
The only bad part about this is that, when this dumb move hurts they they are just going to get more irrational.
Well, you are assuming that any of the artists currently signed to a RIAA label have a choice in the matter. Aren't most of those contracts long term? I recall reading that Radiohead had wanted to try direct sales for awhile but had to wait until their recording deal expired.
And in any case I don't see how that disproves my statement that not all RIAA music sucks and that avoiding it entirely probably isn't an option for most music lovers.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I hate you.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Once you get satellite radio, you never go back.
I think the bigger story here is how terrestrial radio broadcasters utterly squandered a franchise.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Yes, but not in the way you think.
They'll start charging more per-play for the top 40 stuff because they can.
That top 40 stuff will loose air time for the cheaper stuff
The cheaper stuff, with more air time, will become more popular, raising it's price to play...
rinse-repeat
Over all, I think this will ad variety to music played on the radio, as the companies are force, due to expenses, to play more obscure music.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
"Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap...bands that I like (Nickelback)"
does not compute
Nickelback is the poster child for untalented RIAA crap!
Your example of a band that doesn't suck is Nickelback? You, sir, must be the king of subtle sarcasm. I tip my hat to thee.
Yes! Finally we'll get more commercials and less music! Score!!!
Great. So now instead of 25 minutes of commercials every hour, we'll get 45 minutes of commercials every hour. And all radio stations will switch to Pop/Country format, because those are the only profitable segments to advertise in. Stupid artists complaining about not being rich enough... If these idiots couldn't figure out how to live the rest of their lives in relative comfort after ONE radio hit, then they really don't deserve any more money. I know the guys in a band that had ONE hit, and all three of them can live in BIG houses with NICE cars and stuff for the rest of their lives. They don't care to be compensated 20 years from now if somebody plays their song on an "oldies" station, because they aren't greedy SOB's like most of the industry.
> Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap.
Heresy.
All popular music is worthless. If anyone with a clean shirt and a decent haircut has heard of a band, then they're over-processed sellout pop shit for teenagers. It's a scientifically proven fact that the worth of a band is inversely proportional to the number of records they've sold. That's why The Beatles are the worst band in history and quality music peaked when G.G. Allin shoved a Sennheiser up his ass after a baked bean dinner.
I am assuming that SOCAN, ASCAP, and BMI don't have any connection with the RIAA. So now the RIAA wants a cut.
With personal mp3 players and streaming network does broadcast radio even have a future? At one time AM radio was _the_ method of listening to music. Today AM is mostly talk/news with FM being the music provider. I can see FM going to the talk/news format in the near future.
I gave up listening to music terrestrial radio a while ago, the white knuckle payola rotation of pop-tart based music sicken me... Have iPod, will travel...
I wish I was clever!
First they went after Napster
But I did not care, as I never liked Napster
Then they went after Kaazaa
But I did not care, as I did not like Kaazaa either
Then they went after the torrents
But I did not care, as I only use torrents for free software
Then they went after radio
But I did not care, as I never listen to radio anyway
Then they came after me for singing while in the shower
And there was nobody else to care, as music had been exterminated from Earth
The problem is that once your bands start getting played on the radio they'll suddenly be mainstream and you won't be allowed to like them anymore. It's tough being hip.
I read the internet for the articles.
Well, that would be good because talk radio, as it exists right now, pretty much sucks.
People who like Nickelback are not qualified to talk about good music.
You are part of the problem. Good day.
was to advertise musicians songs so they would sell albums...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Oh good grief, are you joking or do you seriously think that musicians who aren't contracted with companies represented by the RIAA are actually better musicians who write better music? Because, well, that's rubbish. RIAA might be pretty freaking evil but don't confuse them with the songwriters and performers that the RIAA hounds people for listening to.
Even if there were a ton of indie bands as good as bands with labels represented by RIAA (Muse, U2, Def Leppard, etc.), which there aren't, what you said would be wholly unfair. Shit, even if Muse went batshit loco and started personally crusading against piracy and pushing for more RIAA lawsuits, it would make them total assholes but they'd still be fantastic musicians with great music.
I like basketball!!1!
This proposal does many things which are good for them
* It's a strike against attempts to relieve webcasters of RIAA payment.
* If it is enacted, the RIAA (SoundSource) ends up collecting all the royalties
* Which means they can screw non-members out, furthering their stranglehold.
* They'll still pay for radio pay, it's just that part of the payment will be an exemption
from royalties, reducing their direct costs.
* Which will further increase the cost of non-RIAA music compared to RIAA music
* Particularly since the exempt music will still be counted in whatever formula they use to
distribute collected royalties, thus screwing non-RIAA artists more.
Aww come on. Haven't you listened to Air America
~ Ron Fitzgerald
Boy...if P2P users weren't enough, those pesky radio broadcasters are letting people listen to music for free!
I was willing to give the RIAA the benefit of the doubt about the copyright lawsuits, but to me this situation lends itself to an industry that is scared stupid about its future. What I don't think they understand is that radio is a semi-safe way to get people exposed to music. If they charge radio stations to play, that means radio stations either dry up or have to get more ad revenue to pay for those songs. This translates into longer commercial time, which in turn translates into lower listening rate. This then snowballs into people getting their music fix elsewhere. Like P2P. It's like they're sabotaging their own industry.
And I don't understand why they're doing that...
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
You've got it backwards. All stations - Terrestrial and over-the-air - pay royalties to the copyright holder of the song itself. These royalties are paid to organizations like ASCAP and BMI, who then distribute the money to the songwriter. The royalties this article discusses are collected by SoundExchange on behalf of the copyright holder of the "performance" of the song (ie the recording the radio station plays). This copyright is generally held by the record company.
Terrestrial stations have so far been exempt from paying the performance royalties, but it looks like that may change.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Fuck 'em right in the ass. With a red-hot poker. With spikes.
Their business model is obsolete and falling apart, so now they're trying to sleaze their way into more revenue any way they can. Last week they decided that, legal precedent and their own claims notwithstanding, that people don't have the right to backup their CDs after all. Now they're trying to shake down radio stations that have been bringing them a constant flow of revenue for decades.
Screw these bastards. We--meaning musicians, music listeners, and the world in general--don't need 'em. Let's get rid of the recording cartel. In my opinion, we need to have a serious effort at a complete boycott of the RIAA.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
Other than those commie hippie homo terrorists on public radio and college stations, radio doesn't broadcast music. It's just right wing asshole redneck shithead talk radio now.
I stopped paying for music years ago now I have no excuse to listen to the radio or theor advertisers either.
On the bright side of things, maybe if the radio stations have to pay to play music, maybe they`ll start playing higher quality content (aka. real music), instead of regurgitating top-20 garbage and promoting the recording industry`s agenda.
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
Worst. Example. Ever.
it shows the extent that the old power structure is eroding under the stress of the influence of the web on music
the eventual nirvana, of course, is completely free digital music
artists get paid for concerts, and advertising deals, no more. and this represents no decrease in filthy lucre for the artists, since in today's paradigm they don't get that much for recordings anyway: the music cartels screw them for pennies
the internet simply represents where people find new bands (rather than the radio, which is controlled, the internet is free), and also represents where they will get their free recordings, which artists will distribute themselves
the music companies?
sorry, no room for them in such a world
as if this were somehow a bad thing, in any way
you do not cry for the jobs of chimney sweeps, horseshoe blacksmiths, and cabin boys that progress has rendered obsolete
you certainly don't have to cry for the historical ireelevancy and extinction of music conglomerates
like any dying dinosaur, they flail about like a great horrible wounded beast, lashing out at everyone and everything they can
lay low, wait, and in due time their coffers will be dry, and they will dead, and not threaten our culture any more with their insane need to preserve a defunct business model based on distributing CDs and tapes, in a world of tcp/ip
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Chieftains are signed with Sony.
Sorry. Meant to say Terrestrial and Internet-based. It's the latter who currently pay royalties to SoundExchange
None of this smells right. Initially I thought, "Awesome, this will finally get the cartel chains off of radio". After sitting on it for a while I realized that this can only lead to one outcome, the (ultimate) death of independent radio.
We automatically assume that Clear Channel will fight this to the ground and it goes without saying that they certainly won't have any positive PR on it and the only thing we will hear are grumbles about Big Government.
Instead Clear Channel will go into a licensing agreement with the RIAA because both parties will make concessions for each other. Either fines will more or less be canceled out or the RIAA will set it at an very low rate. Both parties have too much to loose if Clear Channel gets hit hard as they are a source of guaranteed advertising. Instead the only ones who end up paying will be the independent mom and pop radio stations (all 8 of them). They will (obviously) go into bankruptcy and CC will quickly sweep in to buy them at a discount.
I love all you asses who are so judgmental about someone else's taste in music and then post anonymously...oh, wait...
Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly... but doesn't the RIAA want people to listen to these songs on the radio so they go out and buy the cd?
So does it matter that radio will have to pay? Not to the listener. The reason is that old media exists to provide filler content between ads. The filler content sole purpose is to attract the consumer. So, sports are ideal as it soap operas for boys watch, and it is usually watched live. Radio is ideal because most people have radios in their car where the people are a captive audience, and radio provides a unique ability to meet local markets. Newspaper have a unique ability and infrastructure to develop, design, print, and deliver ad campaigns. The sophisticated abilities of old media just do not yet exist on the internet.
The danger with the pay to play is that will increase costs so that advertising cannot support the media. This is no danger to most consumers. If local radio commercial fails, it just means that those who want that kind radio will have to pay for satellite service. This is likely the end game that many are hoping for, as satellite radio can probably bear the payments more easily. This means that many frequencies will be be free to transmit idie content from small radio stations. Certainly no one here thinks that is a bad thing.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap ... Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members.
Mod parent funny.
Help! I've fallen in a karma hole and I can't get up!
In my dream radio drops the RIAA catalogs in favor of local bands a shows like the old days. At least I think they had more live shows and bands then they do now. I certainly hope things move in that direction as the RIAA moves in it's current direction. Dreams have an interesting habit of becoming reality sometimes. I might even actually start listening to local radio more if it happened.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
What about a compromise? Why must it be all or nothing? How about this:
Drop the yearly fee from say $5,000 down to $2,500. New artists/indie artists get played for free, since the radio doesn't want to pay for a band that could flop when they are expected to suceed (Like Zwan, or Flyleaf, or Paramore, etc). Then any band that goes platinum on a single record (or 750,000 of 2 albums, or some scale like that), then you can charge $.05 for each play. That builds-in a $2,500 allowance, or about 50,000 plays of "top artists" that are essentially free for the radio station, which is about 104 days worth of music (if you played only songs that you paid for with no commercials or breaks, average 3 minute songs). Then, the $.05 also goes to record companies for the first, say, 5 years, and after that, the $.05 goes ONLY TO THE ARTIST (since the record company isn't pimping that album anymore, i can guarantee it).
This style will allow new, different radio stations to pop up (by decreasing the yearly fee) and allow those new stations to play smaller new music for free (still), but those "commercial" radio stations can still play the top hits for about a hundred days for free (no additional cost to what they are paying now), and then if they want to flog all the most popular music, they can pay to do so.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
I guess they're all scared of the rabid Nickelback fans frothing at the mouth with mod points. Of course, they might all be posting AC because the quality of his example isn't related to the substance of his argument.
Also, don't defend the grandparent with that high-horse bullshit about "judgementalism"; he was the one that started his post with a defamatory remark about JT, whom many people like (I am not among them). In the end, there are objective standards for music; quantitative analysis can be done on several axes, like originality, creativity, form, musicianship, etc. In many of those axes, both JT and Nickelback score obscenely low.
So, the RIAA will charge the stations for copyright and the (big) stations will charge the RIAA right back for payola. The only one suffering are the smaller stations, who will either disappear or be gobbled up. Somehow this seems like something both the RIAA and the large media companies will benefit from.
Perhaps the truth about the typical draconian recording company contract will come out, and the real destination of most of the profits will be exposed for all to see.
:-)
I think the artist should get a much larger cut, personally, but the internet might render a lot of the old stuff moot eventually in any case. Who needs a recording contract when you can record your music (or other works) digitally and stick them on a web site?
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Chas, meet Roman.
:->
Allez!
Science never settles, never rests.
I got it right. It's just a little confusing. ASCAP and BMI collect performance royalties, for performing the songs on the air, and use the money to pay the copyright holders. Soundexchange wants to collect copyright royalties and pay the record companies. Terrestrial stations have always paid performance royalties to ASCAP and BMI.
Hell no. There already is a compromise. Free music for free promotion. At least in college radio, the DJ's (I was one til I graduated) make a decent effort to tell listeners the artists, if not the songs, played. I recall having people call in and ask "Who is this on right now?". Whether they planned to pirate or purchase the song or album is a different discussion, but the point is that these records are getting promoted for free. RIAA is trying to double dip, and I say give 'em the one finger salute. If anything, they should be PAYING radio stations for giving their bands airtime and thusly exposure (except that's illegal...Payola). Fortunately, most college radio is not-for-profit. But I think generally, the same rule applies to normal radio.
Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap. I happen to mostly listen to modern/hard rock. Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members.
Hey, has anyone mentioned that Nickleback sucks? No? Well then, FYI, Nickleback sucks.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm sorry, but yes there are bands as good as the three you mention who are on indie labels. Certainly there are indie bands that are better than the three you list. I'd never heard Muse before so I went and had a listen. They sound like about a hundred other bands I've heard live, but with higher production values. Most people don't understand that this is the major difference between the indies and and the majors, production costs. And honestly, I can do without the overproduced crap that is the vast, vast majority of major label releases.
A blog about stuff.
Nobody asserts that the RIAA music sucks because their business practices are abhorrent/repugnant/unethical. Instead, the general assertion is that
- (a) the fact that the majority of RIAA music sucks, and
- (b) the fact that many find the RIAA's biz practices repellent
are not causal of each other in either direction, but are both symptomatic of (i.e. caused by)- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Nicely put.
If they truly are shooting themselves in the foot, then why should we not cheer them on? Dig deeper!
Perfect example to prove the GP's point, Nickelback is the pop of the modern/hard rock genre. I like some of their catchy tunes, but they are by no means "hardcore underground D3@74 M37@1"
My Babylon
Seems fair to me that if other media broadcasters pay a performance fee, that so should broadcast radio. It also seems fair that the artists should be paid by the company that they produced the product for. I may be an optimist, but I don't think that the record labels will willingly change their practices this far into the game.
This would seem to me yet another chance for a new record label to be established that would actually PAY its artists to really create a foot-hold. And who cares that the big media have so much control over the CD distribution when the Internet is the future of music delivery. Most of the music stores in my area have closed up, or been merged into a bigger store.
At this point, does an artist who just wants to sell their music really need the large labels? They just need access to a good sound studio for a short time and then begin selling their music for 99 cents a download. Touring seems like an awful lot of work for an artist. If the artist is any good, that goodness will spread by word of mouth and other methods of free advertisement. The bad artist will go broke and go away and stop cluttering up the music gene pool.
Bearded Dragon
Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members.
... but IMO Nickelback is one of the most perfect examples of "pop-esque crap" that RIAA labels spit out.
/. cliches with nothing to back it up I can list many examples: Esthero, Circa Survive, Zero 7, Thievery Corporation, Joe Satriani (older but still making kick ass albums, can't remember the last time I heard one of his songs on the radio) etc.
No offense intended, I know it's all subjective anyway
I'm an indie artist and I listen to a massive variety of music. There is a lot of great stuff coming out today, but when it comes to "mainstream / RIAA-signed / radio station" it's pretty much all the same regardless of what genre it is. Even country has gotten so pop and static. If you hear one country song you've heard them all. One pop song you've heard them all. One "rock" song you've heard them all.
Most of the new "modern rock" songs that I hear on the radio these days remind me of Justin Timberlake. The male acts sound like they took the N'Sync vocalists and put a few power chords behind them. The female acts fit into one of two cliches: the solo chick with an acoustic guitar or the rocker goth chick with a testosterone all-male combo of guitar bass and drums behind her.
There is a massive amount of real talent out there being creative and doing different things. They just don't get a lot of radio play. And just so I'm not accused of spouting the same
compensate them directly without the MA****
That's "Music And Film Industry Ass. of America" (MAFIAA)
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Don't forget: How we Recycle
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Music is a personal thing, just as it's always been. To me, Nickelback is no better or worse than Justin Timberlake. It's just not interesting to me. Same with Radiohead. That doesn't mean it's bad music, just not for me. For reference, my musical tastes span the entire spectrum.
In the end, the producer or distributer is more or less irrelevant with regard to whether I'm going to like the music.
Of course, nowadays I only buy used cds, and therefore the RIAA doesn't get a cent from me. If the artist tours, I support them by going to the show, or promoting them to my friends.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
So you pay your manager and your booking agent. Where do you need the record company in the chain?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Apparently, not many have.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The RIAA must not have any feet left, because I thought they shot off both of their feet when they started suing their customers.
I have subscribed to your newsletter.
Indie Rock Pete, is that you?
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, et al collect royalties on behalf of the songwriters.
Soundexchange wants to collect royalties on behalf of the artists.
I happen to mostly listen to modern/hard rock.
Then PLEASE list a few good hard rock bands besides Buckcherry that debued in this century. I'm not talking about whiners like Hinder, either. Somebody needs to give today's RIAA "rock" stars some Zoloft.
In the words of one of the guys in the indie ska band the Pietasters (live album), "Zoloft - because life's too fucking good!"
Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback)
Nickleback? Never mind. They're no better than Justin Timberlake. People say RIAA music sucks because we hear it on the radio.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
FLIPPER RULES!!!
doesn't the RIAA want people to listen to these songs on the radio so they go out and buy the cd?
Are you kidding? Who would buy that crap after actually hearing it?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Ok, I can grant that you have a point. But in all seriousness, the mentioning of Nickelback seriously detracts from the statement you are trying to make.
./, the fact that you like Nickelback has pretty much invalidated whatever opinion you have about anything. EVER. Next time try listing at least more than one terrible RIAA band in your example, lest you get flamed like never before. On the other hand, if Nickelback happens to be the one and only single RIAA band that you listen to, we applaud your endeavors to rid yourself of the evils of the RIAA, but still implore you to try harder. Seriously, putting "Michael Jackson" in there is bound to get a better response than "Nickelback". People who don't like Michael Jackson can at least understand why other people like Michael Jackson. I can't say the same about Nickelback.
I've done a little impromptu study with a few of my friends on gtalk/irc/aim. I sent each of them one of the following three sentences:
"Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members."
"Quite a few of the bands that I like are signed to RIAA members."
"Quite a few of the bands that I like (randomriaaband) are signed to RIAA members."
Now, judging by their various reactions and the many comments in response to your post here on
If you think Muse has production cost as an advantage, listen to them live. I've seen them in a small venue (before they became big in the US, which I figure they have since they played at the Garden this Summer) and no, there aren't indie bands like them. There aren't any other bands like them right now, period. Also, an indie band better than Def Leppard? Please send me the name because if you're right (I doubt it), then I will be your best friend, no joke about it.
I like basketball!!1!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I hope Congress scrutinizes these major label contracts to expose just how much they're ripping off artists, but I wish the NAB had jumped to the defense of webcasters and satellite radio when they could've used the lobbying clout in DC. The NAB look really self-serving in all this now, and it may be too late (but heck, I still hope they win big).
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
This is true for the radio single version of a song, but is not universally true. There will be some performances that are owned not by the record company but by the radio station. When an artist is on tour, drops by the local radio station to plug their album and performs an in-studio version of their song, that copyright can easily end up going to the radio station.
What passage of this bill might mean is that such recordings owned by the radio stations would become more important. You'd end up hearing more "exclusive tracks" and I can easily see radio stations deciding to play an artist or not based on their willingness to provide them with non-RIAA owned performances. And I can easily see radio stations in different markets setting up trade deals that would give them access to each other's in-studio performances.
At that point, I imagine the RIAA probably tries some sort of counter-shenanigans like stipulating in artists' contracts that they have to assign the copyright for all performances to their record company.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Wait a minute. This is totally backwards. Being played on the radio is basically advertising. The record companies should be paying radio stations to get artists heard. And the bigger the hit, the more they pay to keep it playing. Or something like that.
Then again, it would suck for indie labels that might not be able to afford to pay to broadcast. And you'd end with an even smaller subset of music being played on the radio.
How about a compromise. Record labels admit that radio play is free advertising. And Radio stations continue to get revenue from advertsing.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Hmm, this is interesting, I wonder who makes the bigger bribes, err I mean 'Campaign Contributions' to the crooks in Congress... that will tell you who will come out the winner.
ps. and, as usual, it won't be the consumer
How did this get modded up? Nickleback sucks is insightful? I'm not sure if I agree with whether they are a good band or not, but a guy (or gal) is entitled to their opinion.
Secondly, Nickleback is distributed under a RIAA label. The problem that I think this community has with this is not that Nickleback (or Justin T or whomever) sucks or not, but that these bands get propped up artificially. They get publicity, promotion and notoriety that they wouldn't have if they were attempting to make it on merit alone.
There's a lot of Indie Artists that register much higher on the sucks-o-meter than Nickleback. The reason that Slashdot doesn't seem to drag them out to the proverbial whipping post is because those bands tend to remain obscure for a reason. However, if somebody said that they liked one of those bands, I don't think some smart ass would be harassing him about it.
Star Pirates
Artist and the RIAA should be paying the broadcasters for promoting their songs!! Say good bye to music fellows it's been nice listening.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
They want everyone to pay every time they listen to or even think of a song. Hookers and blow aren't cheap.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
They want to be paid every time anyone listens to their songs, and they want to be paid for every potential set of ears. Period.
They say their revenues have been slumping (or not growing as fast as they feel it should -- I'm not really sure), so they're looking to have the rules changed to make sure they get more money from everyone all the time.
Personally, I think you're right -- the radio stations are going to balk at getting gouged even more to play the music so the record companies can sell the records. I mean, a new song getting on the charts requires radio play to be heard in the first place.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That top 40 stuff will loose air time
Well air time needs to be loosed. I mean, let it run around the yard at least. Poor air time, I'm calling the APCAT (Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Air Time). And for crying out loud feed the poor thing!
I think this will ad variety
That's a good thing, advertising needs more variety.
-mcgrew =P
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It's all about control.
1. Radio stations are forced to sell more advertising to support their increasing royalty fees
2. RIAA buys advertising time to play song clips and album trailers of their choosing
3. ???
4. Profit!
Move all sig!
Agreed. If the local radio stations dumped the RIAA labels and started featuring more local talent, that would be nice. Win-Win for everyone. The radio station gets to tell the riaa to piss off. Local talent gets more air time and more independed cd sales. I know a number of local bands that make most of their money off of CD's they make themselves and sell at their gigs. From what I understand it isn't chump change ether.
But by far the best part is the RIAA gets a nice kick in the balls.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
There aren't any other bands like them right now, period.
If you insist, but they sure don't sound original to me.
Also, an indie band better than Def Leppard? Please send me the name because if you're right (I doubt it), then I will be your best friend, no joke about it.
Well, if you mean old Def Leopard then there probably isn't much indie stuff out there that's better. But there is Neurosis, and, um, I'm sure there other stuff I can't think of off the top of my head.
A blog about stuff.
So this is how you remind me of what I really am? Well, I guess it's not like you to say "Sorry."
My blog
I fear that radio stations might not have a choice -- anyone who isn't Clear Channel will have to keep paying, or the listening public who apparently does want to hear this stuff will change stations to the ones who paid to be able to play the music.
I'm not sure the listening populace really wants obscure music -- there's gotta be a reason why you'll hear the same 2 songs in every single hour of broadcast throughout the day. (Well, I think that's still true, I've not listened to music radio in at least 5 years.)
I'm fairly sure the RIAA is going to charge for all of the music, catalog, new or whatever -- and they'll charge as much as they can get away with.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The availability of Wifi and other wireless networks (EV-DO, HSDPA, etc) is killing radio.
Think about it? Why would anyone listen to possibily hear the same music--only time compressed--that they can download almost instantly on their phone or iPod or subnotebook or other device? For the commercials?
Radio as a broadcast form is losing out to on demand media. With my even my now older than ancient 700wx I can download musics or stream them from my home media center for free and hear what I want when I want pretty much wherever I want. I have access to thousands of songs that I already own and millions more that I could easily own all without the hassle of the radio and its shit. Fuck, I almost forgot, I can do it with my PS3 and my PSP. WiFi is pretty much everywhere now. I have EV-DO access when I do not have the WiFi. Why do I need radio? I do not. I listen to stuff occasionally, but not much (pretty much just the O&A).
Now kids are growing up in a situation where they get their first iPod at 4 and their first phone at 6. I do not think most American childrens even know what a radio is, much less how to use them.
The spectrum will be freed up for something else. The only real use for radio will be for emergencies and weather and that type of information. Entertainment? Forget it. There are other system that work better.
The issue would come to being important regarding rights in the future. Radio is fucked. But charging listeners for plays might be an idea. It is easy enough to track. The brick-line Zune does it as part of its social experience. Fix that system and charge people for plays. That is the way to go. There is money there, and personal music is not going the way of the wheeled barrow or typewriter.
This is good in my humble opinion, perhaps it is time for radio to stop playing RIAA's JUNK and start playing REAL music from REAL artists and compensate them directly without the MA****... er, I mean the record companies as middle hand..
I think an industry shake-up is beginning. The RIAA is an expensive middleman. The radio stations promote artists. If the radio stations have to pay to play, then the library of music is now based partly on cost to play. The free advertisements have just vanished. The real artists (independent) will self promote on myspace and youtube. The radio stations will then need to find music to play. They can either pay rates for RIAA members, or offer to promote independent artists demo tapes for free. I can see many stations becoming popular just by promoting hot new acts. Watch the established industry with a product for sale sit on the sidelines while new acts promotional materials pass them by.
The RIAA has opened a can of worms on this one. The counter inspection of recording contracts is going to hurt them. Many artists may get liberated from the RIAA contracts to continue doing business as an independent. Those who stay in RIAA contracts will still have to deal with the RIAA radar and the backlash of the litigation campaign.
The RIAA public relations is badly hurt at this point. They haven't figured out that when you find yourself in a deep hole to quit digging.
The truth shall set you free!
Not true really. They are on XM now too, so I imagine thier listenership is up.
I actually never hard of AAR until I hard ads for it on XM.
Could it be they are getting desperate? If they can't sue because they can't prove IP#s, then they have to look to where they *can* prove their music plays. Perhaps this really is all that is left them?
- Will they actively crack down on pirate radios with police and legal forces?
- Will possession of radio or any broadcast equipment become illegal?
-
- Will they cross borders and seas to get broadcasters not on US soil (that reach the US via their broadcasts)?
- Does such laws apply to other broadcast devices such as portable players with wireless connections (like phones with bluetooth, wireless home music systems, wifi capable laptops, etc)?
- Is there some sort of reaction from the rest of the world to this? Do they follow suit or object?
My view is that restrictions are not just a blow to the ideas of freedom and sharing, but to culture itself. Culture is based upon the free circulation of ideas and art and is not a payed commodity, especially popular culture. But I am an optimist: the further they pull the chains, the closer they get to the demise of their system: Monolithic control system will collapse and artists will be free.
Personally I'm hoping the Radio Stations retaliate by blowing off the mass produced RIAA garbage and going with lesser known indy artists instead.
Collector's Edition
Certainly you can prove your point that not all RIAA members are "pop crap" by mentioning Nickleback
LMAO! XD
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
And that is the way it should be. Bands should be propped up for any reason. They should get by on talent alone. With out the RIAA in there that is the way it works. I know several indie bands that started small and grew on talent alone.
I know the bands that don't suck also tend to turn out better music time after time. Where bands with RIAA labels usually have one good cd then the rest blow monkey shit. Nickelback was a good example. They had a few good songs on the first cd while the second CD sucked a mules ass. Maybe one song on the first cd, wish I could remember what it was.
I give you Bjork as a prefect example of propped shit. She bites the big chud but she is still there barfing up CD after CD of the same crap. Perfect example of RIAA propped shit. Now I humbly wait to get flamed by some fucked Bjork fan. I'm sure he is around here somewhere.
(
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Yes, partially to blame though is the FCC. If the FM stations don't get the FCC's power of censorship removed, they're just going to die out completely.
I find it utterly fascinating that the record labels have gone straight from PAYOLA, where radio stations are paid BY RECORD LABELS (all RIAA members, by the way!) to favor certain songs over others, to the RIAA (which ostensibly is speaking on behalf of those same RECORD LABELS) demanding "royalties" for playing those records (or discs, etc.).
The MAFIAA has simply gone stark-raving mad with greed, if they think pissing-off their single largest FREE (did I mention FREE) ADVERTISING service (Radio) is going to bring them anything but grief and lawsuits.
Oh, and speaking of lawsuits, though IANAL, there is a legal doctrine known as "Laches", which means you can't sit on your hands, and THEN claim you are being "damaged". There is another legal doctrine known as "Implied Consent", which states you can't let some behavior that is against a policy go on for a significant number of months or years (or, in this case, DECADES), and then suddenly claim that the other guy is "in violation" of that policy.
IMHO, the MAFIAA is TOAST on this, as well they should be...
So you want to pay the very successful artists and not pay that poor, not-yet-successful artists? Thats not exactly fair and NOT supportive of the very existance of copyright (to promote arts and sciences). As soon as that scheme goes into play, copyright is no longer within the frame laid out by the Constitution
Please stay away from politics and law, you have failed.
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You're forgetting the fact that the majority of Americans are so musically ignorant, that they wouldn't know a good song if it jumped up and humped their face. They buy 3-chord songs because they can't wrap their heads around anything more complicated.
Muse is a band that grew on me. I didn't even think that much of them until I saw them live. (Incidentally they win "Best live band" awards every year and I'd say they deserve 'em.) Matt Bellamy (the vocalist/lead guitar/keyboard/songwriter) writes a lot of melodic progressions you just don't hear in rock otherwise, and his versatility is pretty stunning. (Very talented musician, total idiot otherwise, go figure. Same as Tom Cruise with acting, I guess.)
:-/), is chillingly good IMO but to each his own.
:-)
I'd suggest songs, but everyone finds a particular one they like best. Muse's most well-known is probably Stockholm Syndrome. An interesting one is Showbiz, as it has little melodic progression and is more about the buildup in intensity from beginning to end. Its ending, as long as you're listening to a good recording (or lucky enough to see it live, I wasn't
Neurosis -- I'll give them a listen when I get the chance at home. Always on the lookout for good music
I like basketball!!1!
dime of that money?
How naive are you?
Its just a deal that broadcasters worked out in the thirties with some "friends" in gummint so they wouldn't have to pay royalties which some other people worked out earlier with some other "friends" with the gummint.
Instead the broadcasters paid way less dough to a few 'selected individuals' (that's how corruption works and get absorbed as "the cost a doing bizness'.)
Art doesn't enter into it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Try not to take it too hard, but when some of us are talking about how RIAA artists are mostly crap, it's bands like Nickelback that we're talking about and serve as a perfect example.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
He said he was pissed that he never got a cheque from socan.. "I hear my stuff on the radio all the time, but do I see any money from them? Nooo."
Record companies are screwing artists and have been since the beginning. I will love to see this backfire on them.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
You are all a bunch off whining bitches and the subject line is exactly why there is an overreaction coming from the industry.
I blame all of you who think its fucking ok to steal someones music and then whine about how bad it is and why you won tpay for it, so you steal what you dont really like.
What the fuck is that all about assholes?
Your all fucked and will only be left with your lame ass Rock Band game since you cant play a fucking note
Go scratch a record you dopes
Not all RIAA music is Justin Timberlake-equese crap. I happen to mostly listen to modern/hard rock. Quite a few of the bands that I like (Nickelback) are signed to RIAA members. In fact I'm hard pressed to think of a genre of music that doesn't have at least one or two prominent bands/artists signed to RIAA members.
Not all good music is on RIAA labels. In the RIAA litigation campaign, I have used RIAA radar to make my choices as the marketplace can send them a very strong message. The RIAA sometimes knows to turn a blind eye. For example, animated Christmas lights are popular on youtube. The earliest one to be a hit was the Carson Williams house. (look it up) This awesome lightshow had a soundtrack and it was by an RIAA label artist. Here was an entire song posted online. It was distributed to millions. At the home it was broadcast on the airwaves on low power FM. Care to take a stab at the legal paperwork, fees, contracts, etc are required to do this without breaking any copyright law? Did the label or artist sue?
The answer is not only did the RIAA not sue, but the songwriter and performers gave Carson Williams VIP treatment to their touring concert. Compare this to the artist formally known as Prince and a less than 30 second clip of a toddler dancing to a tune on a boom box.
The popularity of the show did raise legal questions. The maker of the automation software in cooperation with the band now has agreements to llicense the performance rights to some of the songs. If you decide to do an annimated light show and post the result online, be sure to get the proper license. Don't animate to a song you don't have a license for. It exposes you to either praise by the band or legal problems.
On this page, you can get the sequences for the lights. They have a contract with TSO. You buy the CD, rip it and use it for your show. It's OK. For other artists they best describe the deal as under negotiation. Which simply means they are fighting of the money. If you use another song and don't have a contract, and post the result online, expect a call from a lawyer for the money.
http://store.lightorama.com/sequences.html
"IMPORTANT --- YOU MUST DOWNLOAD individual sequences. (Packages are mailed on CD). At the end of the ordering process you will see one BLUE DOWNLOAD button for each individual sequence purchased.
Click Here for Free TSO Sequences!
License rights for additional songs are currently under negotiation and they will be added to this page as contracts are signed."
The sequence of most artists with an agreement are about $30/song for the performance rights as indicated on this page.
"http://store.lightorama.com/dehabymast.html
Arranged and Performed by Chip Davis
from the album entitled Mannheim Steamroller Christmas
Provided by American Gramaphone L.L.C.
©1984 American Gramaphone
©1984 Dots & Lines, Inc. (SESAC)
Includes a 16 channel sequence file, 32 channel sequence file and a MP3 Audio file encoded at 128kbps.
Once you have completed your checkout there will be a BLUE DOWNLOAD BUTTON and you can immediately download your sequence.
If there is not a download button present after checkout, that indicates that you credit card requires additional verification. This should take less than 24 hours at which time you can download your sequences.
For best lighting effect: Connect your lights horizontally or vertically in channel number order. If you use the 32 channel sequence the first 16 channels are on Unit "01" and the second 16 channels are on Unit "02". Set your Unit IDs appropriately.
Sequence $29.95
If you roll your own, be careful. It could be a RIAA nightmare.
I used the Mannheim Steamroller example as they are currently on the RIAA Radar page as safe. I haven't checked the entire list of songs on the site to see if any are RIAA labels except TSO which is on an RIAA label which is why
The truth shall set you free!
While you are correct in the current market, I think in the long term this is a good move for music consumers AND for the artists.
If meatspace radio were forced to pay the same painful royalties as internet radio, based on probable numbers of listeners (and in a big market, that's a LOT of listeners) there'd be such a hue and cry that the entire statutory royalties thing would soon be restructured to something more realistic -- because otherwise they'd all be in the same financial black hole that internet radio is about to go into.
[For one of the more popular internet radio stations, the royalty figure worked out to $17,000 per listener per year. Imagine if a New York or Los Angeles meatspace station had to pay that much!]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
...not part of the solution.
Solutions are not the answer. -- Richard Nixon
What?
Circumcision is child abuse.
I've tried a few times to like indie music. I've even found a couple bands I thought were pretty good and bought a cheap CD or two from them directly. But is there a way to find bands I might like based on other bands I do like? I'd love to see an internet radio feed that mixes indie stuff I might like with mainstream stuff I do like. I need a way to find new stuff I like in the vast ocean of stuff I don't. Some kind of filtering needs to be in place, I get tired of searching though the pile of stuff I don't like for the one thing I do. That's the traditional role of radio, but all the local stations seem to be owned by ClearChannel now and all play the same crap with no indie stuff.
I actually thought the record labels DID pay, at least in an indirect way, to get their music played on the Radio.
What a warped sense of business these AA's have..
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
new tag for mafiaa stories: nickelbacksucks?
Def Leppard's new stuff is on the level of other "good" bands around nowadays. Not great, pretty generic, but the production value is still high and at least they're productive. I'm waiting for something truly good to come from them once again (yay for Scorpions' new album, by the way ^_^), but I mostly was talking about their 80s stuff. They're still performing it, and they're still with a big label.
My point really was that big labels have some fantastic bands signed, in spite of the RIAA being pure evil. Being indie doesn't make you better, and many of the best bands do get contracts with labels once they get on their radar (and then "improve" due to having more money to produce music).
I like basketball!!1!
Reminds me of this
Technoli
I think there may be more at play here than people are commenting on. People have been using radio as an example and excuse for a few years now. They claim that since radio is exempt from certain royalties, that internet radio should be also. If the RIAA gets what it wants, this excuse is no longer valid. Secondly a lot of people, myself included, use radio as an example of how mp3 downloading is beneficial. I use it to hear new music and buy it if I enjoy it, delete it if not. But with this change just hearing a song over the radio would 'pay the artist'. Therefore if I want to download an mp3 even just to sample an artist, I _should_ pay for it as well, according to what they are trying to legislate.
I don't agree with any of these business practices, but I can see why they would attack radio like this. I doubt they foresee the results of this though.
isn't radio essentially advertising for the labels? I for one welcome this because by reversing payola, it is far more likely that radio stations will turn to independent labels and unsigned bands for material to play on the air, and the indies will welcome this because they want to be heard and make a living without selling out and being indebted to the big labels -- and we "consumers" will hear better music as an end result. Everybody wins! Well, everybody except the big labels, who seem to be hell-bent on corporate suicide.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Hate to break it to you, but Nickelback is pop crap
talk show programs (just like "unscripted reality shows" [Oh please, no]) filling the air waves.
The money train's coming to the end of the tracks boys. (No more snorting blow out of a naked hooker's navel.)
It may suck to be us for a little while, but Mullah Omar may be getting his wish after all: "A world without music."
The advertisers who are stuck paying for it all won't mind in the least. (Hell. Truck and beer and during a show about trucks and beer. What a winner!)
The audiences who are stuck with listening to it all won't mind in the least.
Look for the sale of hands-free headsets to go up so "Tucker Tom" can talk back to the radio because they'll have made room to the "Trucker Tom"s of the world.
The price we're stuck with for the **AAs is about to come crashing down because the broadcasters don't have to broadcast music.
Once the broadcasters are on the program, the audiences will realize that instead of wanting them just for their ears and their wallets, the broadcasters will want them for what the audience can contribute.
But the price structure will still be in place, like a bottle of foul tasting hangover remedy, to remind us all of the period in time when billions of pennies were siphoned from all of our pockets and drained into the vast bulging pockets of a very few.
We'll just have to call the music by some other name. (Its happened before, English didn't exist except as utterances spoken by Shakespeare and 'groked' by the audiences to his plays.)
No to sound apocalyptic, but its all coming to an end because its all going 'round again.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I've been a little confused on all this. If you want to play songs over the air, or stream them over the internet, and you are doing it NOT for profit, just free....do you still have to pay? Do you come under these rules?
Most of the laws and rules I've heard all stipulate that if you are making money off ads or whatever using this music, then you have to pony up the $$. But, what if you just wanted to run a streaming server for free or broadcast as part of a non-profit entity, which I would guess highschool/college stations would qualify for?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
People still listen to radio?
No, it encourages promotion of smaller acts (since radio station's won't have to pay to play those smaller bands), and stops the current model of 10 songs from the major hitters on repeat (due to increasing cost each time those songs are played). IF the small band is good, they will get played more than others, and eventually become a band that people will want to hear on the radio. Then, they get big enough they don't need the "free promotion" anymore, and the bigger radio stations will pay to play them. And sorry, but paying "successful" artists is still an issue, like Tom Waits in the article; does he not deserve to be paid for his work anymore because he's "established"? It's the same model that is occuring on the internet (hundreds of thousands of free videos and shows available, but the "well established" shows often require the viewing of ads or paying for the content, either with ads or directly from the consumer). Once the online videos become popular enough (See: Zero Punctuation) someone will pay for that content if it's good enough.
And the "copyright" arguement is a different can of worms that I'm directly not addressing, since copyright law is broken (in my opinion) right now.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Correction...
"the eventual nirvana, of course, is completely free digital SUCKY music"
Thats what you want, thats what you'll get but it will be free you asswipes
Its happening now, there are more garage bands and musically devoid musicians than ever and the suck factor is at an all time high
-rap and hip-hop...sucks
-dark and dank emo..sucks
-whiny white boy grind...sucks
-cutsy bratz girl baby talk...sucks
-independent noise bands...sucks
-urban radio slap and grind...sucks
it all sucks sucks sucks, cant play, cant sing or they oversing, cant write
You want it free, get ready for much more
1) Hot new Justin Timbaland song charts
2) Mary Jane Teenybopper downloads song to her iPod
3) Mary Jane Teenybopper listens to song
4) Before the final notes of the song have even completely faded out, Mary Jane Teenybopper
rewinds to beginning of song
5) Mary Jane Teenybopper listens to song
6) Before the final notes of the song have even completely faded out, Mary Jane Teenybopper
rewinds to beginning of song
7) Mary Jane Teenyboppper listens . . .
- - Two Weeks Later - -
748) . . . rewinds to beginning of song
749) Mary Jane Teenybopper listens to song
750) Mary Jane Teenybopper finds out Alicia Keys new song unseated Justin Timbaland from the #1 position on the Billboard charts.
751) Mary Jane Teenybopper downloads song to her iPod
752) Mary Jane Teeybopper listens to song
753) Before the final notes of the song have even completely faded out, Mary Jane Teenybopper
rewinds to beginning of song
754) Mary Jane Teeybopper listens to song
755) Before the final notes of the song have even completely faded out, Mary Jane Teenybopper
rewinds to beginning of song
756) Mary Jane Teenybopper listens to song
757) Before the final notes . . .
758) And so on
759) And so on
760) And so on
Now, you were saying something about whole album sales?
I consider myself a music lover, and I think most of the artists I like are signed to Metropolis Records. I e-mailed them once about their RIAA affiliation and they promptly replied to inform me that they are in no way a part of the RIAA.
Avoiding the RIAA is an option, and it's one I apparently started to take even before I was aware of it.
"...quality music peaked when G.G. Allin shoved a Sennheiser up his ass..."
Well I could see that with a Sennheiser ME-4 or maybe even an ME-66, but if it was an MD-421, then the initials "G.G." must stand for Goatse Guy.
The major label business model is to throw a huge amount of marketing cash at a small number of bands, and count on some of these bands to sell a million CDs. Any media channel that can promote a broader range of bands, at little or no cost, is eating into their profits.
The purpose of this royalty increase is to drive small, independant radio stations out of business, so that only the RIAA-friendly ClearChannel commercial juggernaut remains.
Internet radio, which they have also targeted with huge fees, is their worst nightmare.
I supposed it does, ir you only listen to the nationally syndicated stuff, but, what about LOCAL talk radio? I've grown to really like WWL down in the New Orleans area. Local and national topics, callers from the area with interesting opinions, etc. I'd never listened to talk radio pre-K(atrina), but, when I got back it was the best way to see how things were going along. Over 2 years later, I'm still a fan....interesting stuff.
One of the big topics now, is the hullaballoo over the destruction of 4 of the blighted housing projects down here. This is starting to get national coverage, but, on the nat'l circuit, you don't get the full story, like that this was pretty much all slated BEFORE the hurricane, so it isn't a big conspiracy plan. The units would cost MUCH more to refurb than to tear down and build into much nicer mixed income housing (asbestos problems alone do that), not to mention that we currently have about 400 affordable/subsidized housing units available RIGHT NOW for people to come back to that are sitting empty.
But no....nothing but public protest over tearing down the centers of poverty, crime and ignorance that have plagued the city for decades, in order to give the poor a better place to stay that will hopefully break the cycle of welfare and dispare, and give them hope and a nice, safe place to stay and become more successful in life.
[/soapbox]. Sorry...got on a rant, but, really local talk radio is a wonderful thing.
Do most cities not have a talk radio station that is predominately locally run with local content?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Talk about the RIAA shooting itself in the foot, no this is more like a self inflicted head shot. Radio is nothing more then free advertising for records. If you make the stations pay more to play records then they will play less. Heck they might even start inviting local bands to come into the station and play live over the air. Any band would do this in a heartbeat This could be great.
Actually for music fans the best thing the RIAA could do is raise the price of CDs to $250, invent un-breakable DRM and charge broadcasted some huge fee. Basically a self inflicted head shot. I realy do have feelings for the RIAA and don't want to see them die a slow and painful death, a clean head shot is best for everyone.
College maybe...
;)
The station i usually listen to has no DJ. Thus NEVER gives a title. Seems kinda odd since the tagline is "70's 80's and whatever" The whatever started out as 60's and 90's and has turned into meaning whatever the hit of the month is being pushed. Even if i wanted one of the new songs i would not know who to look for. I imagine most listening to a 70's/80's station probably are NOT there for new music.....
This is of course to diferenciate themselves from the other 2 stations in same genre that play the lastest hit of the month with some oldies mixed in............ altho 1 does announce song titles i believe.
sigh
maybe i should just get a jukebox
> scientifically proven fact
While I totally agree with your point, it is important to clarify that science does not prove anything. There is no step in the scientific method where anything is proven. Hypotheses and theories are constructed and tested, but never proven.
The radio monopoly spent years signlemindedly promoting Republican causes with right wing radio, and now their arrogance is coming back to haunt them... as a result, they don't have the kind of clout that Hollywood does with this congress... Maybe they will learn that elections have consequences, and that promoting honest and fair media (instead of a right wing biased one) might have prevented this debacle for them... somehow, I doubt it! I won't shed a tear when they pay out the nose.
I bet the terrestrial stations are starting to wish they stood strong with their net radio associates when there was still time. Whoops! Too late!
Now that the RIAA has net radio by the balls, they can use the net radio fee structure to force terrestrial radio into equally horrific payment terms.
Broadcast radio will never die, for lots of reasons that people who've never *done* disaster recovery work tend not to think about.
This is also true of broadcast television (and cable, as opposed to internet streaming) for reasons that people who have never had to pay the bill for 25 *million* simultaneous RealServer connections tend not to think about.
Well you could start by presenting a band that isn't perpetuating boring, whiny mainstream rock that you like on an RIAA label...
I think that's what he was going for, anyway.
Awesome! I can listen to TWO Nickelback songs at the same time!! :D
All joking aside, it's kindof strange to hear how the tempo, timing of crescendos, and timing of the random-intrumental-section line up almost exactly. Wow.
I wish radio would be more like it was 'in the day'. Where I work, and many other places....they filter out and don't let streaming music come over the network, so internet radio is out for me.
So, most of the time I would have a chance to find and listen to newer music IS over the car radio on the way to/from work. I don't have time to go 'find' all the good music people say is out there.....many people that have adult jobs and responsibilities just don't have time to spend trying to ferret out good music....so, I really wish something could be done to break up the radio station conglomerates, and go back to smaller stations where DJ's were local and could program much of their own music.
Oh well...as long as I keep wishing...guess I'd like a pony too....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I want to live with her in a little Icelandic snow village with the rest of her fairy folk kind, does that count?
The number of chords in a song does not in any real way correlate to the quality of the song, I hope you realize.
Sirius has a good "indie" station (Left of Center) that plays stuff I rarely hear anywhere else (and some stuff that I do).
Dropkick Murphy's and The Pogues? Both RIAA.
to something that happened in New Zealand a while ago. The national TV broadcaster (TVNZ) used to air music videos in between scheduled programs, until the local RIAA-equivelant (RIANZ) decided they should have to pay for the rights to do this. Instead of paying, TVNZ stopped the music videos. CD and cassette sales plummeted. The RIANZ eventually started buying advertisement timeslots to play music videos in an attempt to stimulate sales. The end result was that TVNZ went back to playing music videos for free, and the RIANZ promised to never ever speak of this incident again. The moral here? Don't confuse free advertising of your product with copyright violation, or you'll have to do the advertising yourself.
One of the consequences of requiring radio stations to pay for music is that old music with unknown copyright will simply disappear from the airwaves. Well, faster than it is already. Ask any documentary filmmaker about the problems they experience in using old clips and risking a lawsuit when they don't know who the copyholder is (see http://madisonian.net/archives/2004/12/22/copyright-and-documentary-film/).
Radio has survived and thrived for almost 100 years under the present regime. Do we really want to bury old music, and radio in general?
That's about right. Except that the contract between the "artist" (better known as "performer") gives the record label just about 100% of the royalty. The performer most likely gets nothing.
> What makes you think radio stations or schools can not pay for music?
What makes me think that is the fact that I've worked at several radio stations, including my college's station. Radio stations operate on a very tight shoestring.
-Vort
Yeah!!! Lets all make the Radio stations pay so they can close up shop! Stop playing music! This way we they will PUT the RIAA and the Artists out of JOB!!!!
"Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly... but doesn't the RIAA want people to listen to these songs on the radio so they go out and buy the cd?"
Yes, but you know the chant around here: "Since music is freely copyable, the record industry needs to find a new business model that's not based on trying to sell individual copies of music. New business model! New business model new business model new business model new business model!".
Perhaps the record industry is doing just that; they've realized that many people, upon hearing the song on the radio, will simply pirate the CD; or, if they're law abiding, they might just buy that one track online, for which the record company gets much less money than the old sales model.
So there's the new model: get more money from performances so they don't need to rely on the shrinking "selling copies of music" market. It's just what countless Slashdotters have asked for. Hope you like it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I'm a radio broadcaster and I love terrestrial radio since it is the last free medium. Many artists my stations play will tell you (aside that prick Chris Daughtry, I'm sure) of the power of radio when it comes to promoting their music. A case in point: I spoke with the bassist of Soil after a concert and he told me how he can tell how much play they get in our market. He came to the conclusion it's not a lot as the only collective response they got from the crowd was for their biggest single. Aside from HD Radio with its possible subscription services, there's no way to reimburse the station for paying royalties for promoting music. You could raise the price of advertising, but that would only further challenge a station's sales department. It's already a difficult job. And why pay to hear new music? Most people won't go for it in a medium that's been free for so long. I certainly wouldn't; I'd probably quit the industry.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I'm a Justin Timberlake fan, you insensitive clod!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges
This has to be joke! There is no way someone could consider using Nickelback as an example of quality RIAA music.
The RIAA has been busted a few times now for "payola" - i.e paying radio stations to play certain songs. They just want their money back.
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
Isn't it time to break the RIAA up? This country was never intended to be run by the mafia. I realize corporations have a lot more swing in government affairs than was originally planned, but it's not too late to change that now.
You're nothing; like me.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Cut all the crap that passes for "music" these days and switch all radio formats nationwide to talk radio for a month. The RIAA and the record companies crumble at the sudden downturn in sales revenue. There -- problem solved.
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
This could be the type of thing that causes a bunch of stations to forgo music programming and just switch to a "talk radio" format of some sort. Maybe have a whole boatload of talk stations each focused on some narrow interest of some sort.
Or maybe it will piss off ClearChannel enough to just buy the RIAA member companies and vertically integrate. Especially after they tank the RIAA member companies by boycotting their product for a year or two and then buy them "for a song" as the saying goes.
Does it not seem like the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot with this? I always thought one of the main points of playing tunes on the radio was advertising for the artists, enticing people to buy the whole album.
No, the RIAA will just give back those fees as kick back to the station while telling them what they want to play.
This way, The RIAA guaranties their control over the station for free (give back what they just got) and can crush independent radios playing a mix of music including non RIAA.
This is the first time I have ever heard of anyone actually liking Nickelback! Nickelback!
What's that like???
So you pay your manager and your booking agent. Where do you need the record company in the chain?
You've correctly discerned that, increasingly, the "big labels" (aka "record companies") are irrelevant when it comes to recording. They still have their place, but if you want to get a good quality recording, it's no longer strictly necessary to use them as a hub for production.And this is a bad thing how ?
I see the future of radio ending up just like tv is now. Many will go to satellite (payed service) people will still listen to regular channels. Just will only do so when good content is on. Maybe they will get lucky and if the XM/Sirius merger is allowed to go through , they can get some of thier channels on the satellite feeds with their content.
The RIAA needs to realize the world has drasticlly changed since thier inception. and since they are milking satellite companies the same way it's only fair they hit broadcasters on terrestrial radio the same way.
I can whole heartedly say as a ameature(?) digital music producer , I want to see the RIAA disappear. Or have only them taking money for radio plays. 2 pennies to the artist and a penny to the writer. I am sure the amount of money collected will grow for bands. Bahh let the RIAA as a whole or who ever is collecting take a flat fee of $300 a month for collecting and sending out the fee's. We don't need 5 groups dipping in the pot.
This package Does Not Contain a Winner
Hmmm... may want to include yourself, there. There is nothing about "complicated" music that makes it any more or less intrinsically inspiring or moving than simple songs. Musical exploration that transcends the mechanical into true art is often based on simple chords and melodies, but a talented musician can play with numerous variations and interpretations. This is what makes it "art" - not how complicated the structure of the song is, but how the artist can express emotion within the structure.
I offer as an example "Dark Star", by the Grateful Dead. Mainly it's only 2 chords (arguably 3 if you can sus variants as separate chords), very simple melody. Yet the band (and other artists I have heard) can take that song into incredibly explorations of musical space. In this case, the song itself is little more than a canvas that the band can use for their "painting".
Of course being able to improvise around a simple chord progression is not the only form of musical artistry. Composers often spend years working on symphonic pieces that are treasured for years. But it also takes a lot of talent (and true dedication to the art) to write a simple song that can truly be appreciated. Simple doesn't mean it's crap.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
There soon will be a large hole where between 1950 something and modern 2007; there would be no music played anywhere because the RIAA would like a cartel, monopolize it and control it. We would revert to either INDE music or talk radio. Can you imagine XM radio advertising 180 channels of talk radio!!!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Is that XM? Internet radio? I guess my experience is with "old school" radio.
:(
I usually never listen to the radio anymore (because nobody plays industrial and I have an extensive CD and MP3 collection). Unfortunately, my car's CD deck is the original 1991...and doesn't like cold weather.
I guess I may look into satellite radio, but, it just seems weird to think about paying for something that used to be free (radio), which used to be a good place to hear new music.
Hmm...is it hard to 'hack' those satellite radio units???? (for educational purposes only....)
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"I certainly wouldn't; I'd probably quit the industry"
/.
You said it, but it wont be at the hands of the riaa or other "evil" corporonazis you hear refered here on
It will be because art and the artist is no different than any other industry, they need to make a living and with you freeloader shoplifting downloaders bypassing the artists revenue stream, your the problem,
its not any more complicated than that
You couldn't download a vinyl record or burn it and why should you now unless its yours
but of course no one wants that, it woudl end the shoplifters convention that you all live in
I love how Yuckinator gets modded up for insulting Nickelback
If you have Sky Digital TV in the UK, for £5 ($10) a month you can get Music Choice extra, which has 48 channels of music dedicated to everything from current hits to smooth jazz and everything in the middle... no DJs, no ads, no videos even. Their "Indie Classics" channel, which is actually a lovely mix of indie and old school punk/rock (David Bowie, The Smiths and XTC being a few example artists) is worth the price to me alone, imho.
I write bullshit
And I hate the bands you like!
You're a couple years too late.
The past tense and verbal noun forms are taken as well.
Perhaps you could be "Dividing By Zero"?
LOL. Just for knowing who GG Allin is gives you some props.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
This is what makes it "art" - not how complicated the structure of the song is, but how the artist can express emotion within the structure.
That reminds me of a conversation I once had with blues legend BB King when I was working the load-in/load-out at one of his shows (he talked to everyone and didn't hide in a hotel or dressing room). As a blues player myself, I asked him what was the most important trait to being a great musician. He told me that the greatest musicians have the ability to make an audience laugh or cry with a single note.
'Nuff said.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
No problem, even if they shoot themselves in both feet with this radio-play play, they'll still blame their problems on downloading and filesharing.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Is it possible to write good music using simple harmony/chord structures? Sure. Is some 'guitarist' jamming whole note open fifths (sorry, "power chords") with lots of distortion for 3 minutes good music? No.
Most pop music is artistically equivalent to "See Spot Run". Using the most basic vocabulary and structure because anything deeper would be lost on the listener.
When was the last time you heard a song on the radio that wasn't in four with 16 count phrases throughout? How about something with counter-melody or counterpoint? Perhaps some tonality more complex than the I IV V progression we've had since the Renaissance?
And I'd totally agree with that. But it doesn't happen often enough nowadays.
And that is the way it should be. Bands should be propped up for any reason. They should get by on talent alone.
Ah, I remember when I was 20 and an idealist...
How is a band intended to "get by on talent alone" when nobody can hear your music? There are about 50,000 bands in every state in the US. Why should any given person listen to any one of them over any other? It would take you years just to sit through the cruft to get to a single band worth following.
I give you Bjork as a prefect example of propped shit.
Bjork was part of one of these non-RIAA bands that people like you espouse. I'm sure if it was 1985 you'd be on here talking about how we should all be buying Sugarcubes albums and boycotting the RIAA. That's the problem with idealism; reality has a different dogma. She signed to a major label as soon as she was able to, and her fans continued to follow her regardless. Nothing much about the music changed that couldn't be attributed to 20 years worth of age. Only the label changed.
So when your favorite current indie band signs to a major, will you call them "artificially propped up"? Will their music suddenly suck? Will they suddenly be really boring live? No-talent hacks...
It's pretty ridiculous to indict an entire range of artists simply because of the record label they're signed to. Talk about blind stereotyping... that's supposedly what music idealists like yourself are so against.
before the internet, if i wanted to listen to britney spears in the privacy of my dorm room, i needed to buy an lp, tape, or cd
now i don't have to do that. that's a big difference
additionally, the financial wherewithall to create a media conglomerate meant only a few could play that game. now you have websites like the drudgereport, created by one man, that outshines news organizations like the new york times, or myspace pages that pull in more teenaged ears and eyeballs than entire radio stations
the world is changing in fundamental ways friend, your mind needs to change with it
how do you get people to listen your music? that answer, is, as you suggest, by putting music in front of them. but with the internet, putting music in front of them doesn't have to involve money changing hands anymore
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly... but doesn't the RIAA want people to listen to these songs on the radio so they go out and buy the cd?
Not only that, but the record labels will pay a lot of money (payola) for the radio stations to play the songs on the radio so people go out and buy the CD.
Many people regard them as total sellouts and possessive to no actual talent or creativity... they are a hit generator, which is exactly the kind of thing that they play on pop/rock radio
Someday, there will be a thread about the RIAA without all this elitist bullshit. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH POP? I like meatloaf, bubblegum, McDonald's hamburgers, pizza, Mountain Dew, and pop music. Music is not the center of my life, nor is it the apex of the arts. It's enjoyable noise that makes my commute more pleasant. You don't like pop? Fine. The rest of the world does. Not because it's what's been forced down their throats, but because they didn't study enough to learn that they're not supposed to like it--whatever the fuck that means.
Go find a classical music snob and ask him what he thinks about the music you like. ("Radiohead? HA!") While you're at it, ask a chef what he thinks of your dinner selection, a car enthusiast what he thinks of your ride, and the unwashed masses of Slashdot about your operating environment and text editor of choice. Maybe send these folks a picture of what you're wearing right now. There is no dispute concerning taste. (And I refer to the Latin form of that phrase not because I'm a language snob but to make the point that this idea has been around for a long, long time.) And while you're out gathering all these opinions (as if they matter), I highly recommend hitting a bookstore (NOT a video store) and checking out High Fidelity.
Note that this doesn't mean I like the RIAA's tactics, but that's unrelated to what they happen to sell. They could sell bottled water, or own baseball teams, or make operating systems and office suites--they'd behave the same way and they'd still be assholes for doing it.
Ask yourself this: pick any band you like. Imagine they get picked up by the RIAA. Does that make their music bad? Imagine they become unexpectedly, insanely popular and spawn a whole new world of music, Sprite ads, flannel-based fashion, and extreme sports. Does that make their music bad?
If your reflex is to tell me "Nirvana really sucked, Pearl Jam and Soundagarden were the real geniuses" then you're missing my point--ignore the band I chose as an example. Just imagine any band you like in their place.
PS: I'm not picking on you in particular. I could have replied to any of a dozen posts in this thread.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I am not 20 and an idealist. I'm crufty and a fucking jackass. And hell no on the fucking sugercubes. Worst god damn shit I ever heard. I bought what I though was their first album. The one with the sperm on the cover. I though hey is has cum on the cover, it can be bad. Holy Shit was I wrong. Reminded me of cat with its balls caught in a mouse trap. I traded the sugercubes for a slighty crufty cure cd.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure she has a good following. If I remember she was pretty hot. Doesn't mean she can sing though. And there are idiots out there that will follow a pretty piece of ass anywhere. Good thing that you and I are not one of those idiots.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
improvisation is a whole different ballgame, and well worth respect when done well. (and a simple framework gives the performer a lot more freedom to express) But good improvisation does something interesting with that simple framework.
A simple framework can produce complex or interesting music traditionally as well. Look at Ravel's Bolero. It's the same phrase repeated over and over again, but what makes it interesting is how he uses different instrumentations and voicings for each repetition.
Working for a few local and with a few national bands for 15 years kinda gives ya an interesting perspective on the topic.
With the advent of reasonably priced home recording software/hardware, all you need is the initial equipment outlay and most importantly, a sound engineer that knows their way 'round a board. As far as I can tell, the ONLY things that recording companies are good for are marketing and distribution... and they're screwing the pooch in those regards as well...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Seeing G.G. is like seeing the Goatse guy. You can't unsee it, and you'll *never* forget it.
My name is Rich Bengloff and I work for the American Association of Independent Music ("A2IM") - we are the independent music label trade organization here in the United States. My organization is a proud member of the musicFIRST Coalition (www.musicfirstcoaltion.org), an organization of 160 artists - from independents to major label artists - and eleven music industry organizations. I am on the SoundExchange board of directors where the artist representatives have 50% of the votes, not the RIAA. We independent labels often vote with the artist representatives on the SoundExchange board and combined we, and not the major record labels and the RIAA, have the majority vote. That said, the reality is that most of the time we all agree on the issues, which is to support the music community and the protection of intellectual property. This is clearly one of those times! I have been following the conversation here and really don't understand why some people don't feel performing artists should be compensated for their creativity and record label owners compensated for their investment in producing the music. I like poetry too so I would like to share a poem the Coalition wrote in honor of the introduction of the legislation this week that would finally give performers fair compensation when their music is used for commercial gain. It is tongue-in-cheek, but it gets the point across.
Happy holidays and please go out and buy some music today!
Rich
T'was the Night Before Recess
T'was the night before recess in the Senate and House;
As our leaders worked hard to correct a great louse.
A fair performance right danced in their mind;
They could no longer leave the artists behind.
The time for a change was painfully clear;
Performers have been ignored for 50 plus years.
The copyright loophole needed to be fixed;
It wasn't fair that their talent and hard work was continuously nixed.
Why are artists not paid when their music is played?
Shouldn't radio be held to the very same grade?
Satellite, Internet and cable all see;
Without the music, where would they be?
The Senate and House held hearings to learn;
And better understand the artists' concern.
First in the House they heard from Sam and Judy;
Oh how quickly the broadcasters became moody.
Onto the Senate were Alice and Lyle;
Where Alice wowed them with her acoustic style.
The artists' argument was more than sincere;
It's their hard work we lovingly hear.
Performers like these bring music to life;
Yet still, NAB continues this strife.
"We promote the artists," they continually say;
As they cash their large checks at the end of the day.
It's music that drives the radio's ad revenue;
How is it that artists should not receive their fair due?
Out on the horizon two great heroes appeared;
Mssrs. Berman and Leahy who the NAB feared:
"We'll make this right, we'll close the loophole;
Our colleagues in Congress we will work and cajole."
.
With wisdom and clarity legislation was crafted;
Ignoring poison pills that were floated and drafted.
Some will receive special considerations;
Like small, religious, and noncommercial stations.
It's time to remove this long standing flaw;
This amendment will change the copyright law;
Then Hatch and Issa and Corker and others;
Joined to do the right thing as taught by their mothers.
Our Members of Congress have heard from both sides;
We have complete confidence that fairness resides.
As we look ahead to a sparkling New Year;
We hope your holidays are full of good cheer.
In 2008, we'll continue our fight;
It's only fair that artists receive a performance right.
these new royalties wouldn't be in the contract so the artists get NONE of this. just like Ringtones. The law states radio companies pay Soundforge that pays record companies.. artists cleverly aren't mentioned directly,.
Well, you're already "paying" for radio that was free by having to listen to their ads. This just replaces that by having you pay $.50 a day for a service.
As for the hacking, no idea.
Interestingly enough, if you listen for it, there's a *lot* of pop music lately in 3/4 "waltz" time. "I'm With You" (the Avril Lavinge(?) song) is essentially a waltz. There's others I hear on a regular basis, but I can't name their titles off the top of my head.
As for "why not I IV V".... there's a *reason* it sticks around, cuz using it you can write some damn nice music. Music doesn't need to be "zomg innovative!" to be good.
Yeah, and if they were smart, they'd retool their business model to be a "networking" service for different parts of the music industry. I understand that's what they often *say* they do now, but if they actually did that (and had the good of *all* their customers -- artists, producers, promoters -- in mind when creating and marketing their services) they just might be able to save themselves.
But they won't do that, they're too greedy, and it'll be the end of them (likely sooner than we think).
Bullshit, all it does is throw more money to the established music 'network' of artists and labels. What gives any of the parties involved the right to determine who is 'acceptable' for pay-per-performance play over any other artist.
Tom Waits will get money for play, as will the local band, why should he get paid and the local small time guys get shit on?
Copyright is a total fubar, and as a result of the way its been handled there is NO fair way to deal with ANY of this mess, the less it can be changed without complete overhaul, the better. 14 years + 1 7 year extension is more than enough.
Why does anyone need to get paid for what amounts to a performance replay/rerun? Live shows and direct artist to fan sales is where 'real' money should be, not in the hands of a group of rich jerk offs who are desperately trying to hold on to their media empires despite the revolution.
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Because the same crap will eventually find it's way into satillite? look at cable now.. how many stations have anything that's TV MA or higher? Not many.
How about the idea of radio stations working with the talant as a kind of mechanism of promoting their music. In return, the stations get to play their songs for free.
In fact, stations can act as a kind of "middle man" between the talant and the consumer.
I mean, I like the idea of listening to my favorite Non-RIAA songs on some creative station, and if I like something, to just click on a link to purchase it, and have the radio station negotiate the sale through whatever mechanism exists today. The station just sends back a link where you can download it after purchasing it. Currently, I'm grossly frustrated when I hear my favorite cut on Soma FM only to have no way to obtain my own copy of the track. Sure I can call or contact the station, but that takes up valuable time.
Everyone wins (Except the RIAA or major lables)... The bands get free promotion. The listener gets to review the song before they purchase it, then divide the take by some agreed percentage.
Of course it would take cooperation between the stations, artists, and listeners... and put more burden on the stations to deploy this mechanism.
Does this sound like a good idea?
"We want you to pay a lot more to play our artists' songs on your station."
"No. There's the door. And now, here's a little ditty by new artist so-and-so..."
"Uhhh, let's not get hasty now."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Without radio, who would the RIAA (or any other recording label) have to promote their music for them for free? The RIAA is basically trying to get a bill passed to help cut off their own (free) distribution. Awesome.
I IV V works as a basis for a piece. But you use more than that to transition between them. When that's all there is, it gets old really fast.
The RIAA doesn't seem able to learn lessons from other markets where they've tried this sort of thing. The basic fact is RIAA needs the free air play a lot more than the radio stations need their music.
But - what if I, as a musician, don't want to play by their rules and want my music to be promoted on as many stations as I can get to play it.
I'm not negotiating with any record labels, I'm negotiating with the stations privately on my own.
How can the RIAA "Control freaks" tell me how to distribute my songs when I promote them myself. As an artist, I have NO affiliation with them, nor do I want to. I'm just interested in getting my music into as many ears as possible. I don't trust the RIAA and record lables, or like the idea of some record company OWNING my Intellectual Property.
If I produce a great track on my own with my own tools, my own composition, how can RIAA legally bind me to these draconian rules?
I'm finding a lot of musicians independently producing music who wants to have their songs played on the radio.
Besides, mainstream labled music SUCKS... stations today have an insanely short playlist, so I never listen to RIAA supported music anyway. Nor will I think that stations are going to want to play it anyway. Because there is at least 5 times more songs out there then labled music or videos.
I live in a very rich terristrial radio station market with over 50 stations to choose from. They ALL suck, and I've been listening to XM Channel 43 which plays ONLY non-labled songs, ALL are very good, veriaty is very good with very large playlists. Internet radio is my number one choice for music.
on their foreign listeners.
But their podcasting (like the Ouch! podcasts [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/ ]) are a sign of the times.
Specialty podcasts for specialty markets.
I mean, if you're "not" disabled, why the hell would you care? (Unless you know/like or care about or for a disabled person.)
But if you ARE disabled, then it IS for YOU.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
back to the usual copyright inflation tricks. we got this better law passed in some second class country so to be fair you should do it too... look how that's working in Canada or Sweden trying to get a DMCA, or in Britian to extend Beatles rights because "other countries" already have.
This isn't some Gramma Jenkins being harassed by the RIAA, this is Radio. Do they have any idea what kind of a campaign radio stations could put up? They're not annoying the little guys, they're putting the screws to the very people that can bring down their whole house of shady business dealing cards. Daily ad campaigns, call your congressman, outright propaganda, complete with suppressing/twisting anything the RIAA has to say about it. It's the MEDIA they picked on this time.
I think the proper terminology is "biting the hand that feeds you".
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
That's how it works now. The record labels don't "make" artists take big advances or use the most expensive studio.. of course the label backed Manager does, because it lines their pockets. When the dust settles THEN artists find out the money they spend on recording, guitars, videos, etc was really coming out of THEIR pay... Labels conveniently don't tell artist the truth when spending their money and management is often in on the swindle. Artists don't see the "standard terms" until the money's spent and they owe the label.. and the IRS taxes.
If entertainment was held to GAAP accounting like every other business with proper approvals, signatures, and reciepts, this would be more apparent, but they get huge tax breaks, deferments, and labor regulation favors in the name of "starving" artists and producers.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Nickelback are the poster child for RIAA swill...hell, they even named themselves after the cut they get per album sold!
Its good that congress knows it can't regulate extra-terrestrial broadcasts...
There's nothing wrong with Pop per se, but not all Pop is as overprocessed and badly-sounding as Britney or Lindsay. Plus when they try to sell their shitty Pop as Rock or Metal, it just ends up angering the fans of those genres even more against them, hence the negative connotation it has acquired recently.
The thing is, there's just so many good music out there, Pop, Rock, Classical or whatever, being made by *independant* artists it's hard to justify paying $15 or $20 for the latest RIAA-produced, overprocessed crap. Sure, I may not find out that the singer's little sis is now a teenage mom on E!, but ask yourself this: does that make the music bad?
Point is, you don't have to give up Pop if you decide to listen only to "indie" artists, and even if that's your favorite genre, you may be surprised if you decide to do so.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
i don't know what the record companies plan to get out of this. broadcast radio is their best marketing tool for new music. all the radio broadcasters have to do is boycott the broadcast of new music for a few months and the record companies will capitulate. it might not even take months.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
I'd like to introduce another bill that Charges the Congress,Senate and President by the word for all legislation written.The longer in office,the higher the charge.Make it interesting,start them each with an extra few million and charge $100 and up per word,with the stipulation they can keep the money at the end of their tenure,that,which they don't spend presently.Also Less money and higher charges for 2nd and more term career crooks.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
These record companies are technology companies whether they like it or not.
But they are fighting technology instead of embracing it. They had no technologists on board to provide music download for a fee. So Apple filled that vacuum.
It is up to us to route around these anti-technology dinosaurs. We should not do anything that puts money in the pocket of RIAA members. Then eventual they will disappear.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Try Gnod. I haven't played with it in a while, but it did help me find some new punk bands I wasn't familiar with.
"The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
Dear America; please take Nickelback away and don't bring them back. every time the radio plays Nickelback, god kills a llama. signed, Canada
That the RIAA once again is trying to treat radio like another income stream shouldn't be a surprise. The members are part of a declining industry, so it's a natural progression in such circumstances to milk the remaining market for all it's worth. They may think they're going the cable route, with a constant stream of monthly subscriptions income.
However, at least in the US I think that their customers are already saddled with enough debt that if the choice is subscription or do without, they'll do without or continue going black market.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Nobody plays industrial on the "radio", but I listen to a combination of these commercial-free internet stations all day every day at work, for free.
And yes, I've bought numerous CD's and Amazon MP3's after hearing tracks from these sites. The last one I bought was MenschDefekt by Massiv In Mensch - it's great for the treadmill ;)
I also bought Troops by Dunkelwerk after hearing "Bastard". It was the only track from the album I'd heard, and I only heard it once, but I thought it was so awesome, I went straight out and ordered the album online.
very different styles than the stuff I listen to... I'm more into The Muses
Interesting stuff though... wasn't aware there was enough of a demand for this kind of thing for the RIAA to care.
Actually, a lot of classical music snobs like progressive rock, including Radiohead.
But, as the follow-up said, pop isn't the problem per se. It's fair to say that I don't like Beyonce's music much, but I recognise that she's an extremely talented singer, and respect anyone who likes her stuff. Same goes for Christina. (We're on first name terms, you understand.)
But I digress, this isn't what we're really talking about. There is a certain kind of over-produced, dynamic-range-flattened pop, sometimes from people who really have no business stepping behind a microphone, that major labels seem to release a lot of these days. And that is probably the most recognised symptom of the underlying problem.
Don't get me wrong. Pop music, especially the stuff that lasts, is popular for a reason. But on the other hand, we all know that Britney would never have been let behind a microphone if talent was what labels looked for.
Now, most importantly: Where's the good indie pop music? Really, I want to know. I'm sure it must exist, but I haven't found it. (Unsurprising, since I haven't been looking for it!)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Who is this Nick Le Back these people on slashdot are referring to? Is he some dodgy french guy with a hairy back? I only know of a pop band called Nickelback. I mean I understand that the tedious prison and law breaking imagery, having the same sound for every song, and that never-changing voice that sounds like gravel smoothed over might get tedious, but if you're going to bag a band at least get the name of the band right. Otherwise you come across as an ignorant redneck tool whose opinion on anything let alone art or music can't be trusted.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Die dinosaur die. An idea whose time is at hand?
.
... presuming it is actually possible to
'herd' any or all of those disparate cats.
Mechanical Royalties are collected by the monopoly Harry Fox Agency
( http://www.harryfox.com/public/licenseHome.jsp ) in America
and the writers/composers copyright royalties are collected by the
duopoly ASCAP.COM and BMI.COM
Mechanical copyright and Performance copyright royalties are collected
by the MCPS-PRS Alliance monopoly in Britain
( http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx ).
All are complicit with the MAFFIA/RIAA shenanigans one-way-or-another
as usual, and generally the royalties are horribly skewed in favor of
already well-to-do, 'established' acts - actively discriminating against new
and 'smaller' players.
The time is ripe for original unsigned composers and musicians to bust the
above cartels by starting their own new organisation for supplying: radio, film,
television, record and cyber 'popular' markets - with a standardised membership
agreement and competitive contracts for the various clients.
Slashdotters might even be able to organise it all
RR
Yeah the RIAA does want these songs on the radio. And more importantly, the RIAA wants the songs it chooses to be on the radio. The RIAA's goal here is to give themselves an extra bargaining chip: "if you insist on playing artist A, you've gotta pay the exhorbitant royalty. But if you give extra playtime to artist B (that we're pushing at the moment), we'll waive most of the royalty."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Payola was my first thought as well. While officially it doesn't exist in terms of cash payments for song plays, other promotional tools still play a big part. Exclusive tracks, interviews, in-studio performances, concert tickets, etc. are all pretty common ways for a record company to 'support' a radio station. Given the long history of cash and non-cash payments from the record industry to the broadcasters, I can't imagine how this situation came about.
The radio stations and the recording industry have a pretty symbiotic relationship where needs songs to attract listeners to sell ads, and the other needs airplay to promote bands and sell records. I don't understand how one of the partners, who need to move records/CDs more than ever would sour the relationship? Radio may have lost some of its power as a promotional tool, but as evidenced by the NAB's retaliation, they are a group who understand exactly how the music industry works and have the power to fight back in a way that almost nobody else does. This is dangerous territory for the RIAA, and I hope there are more fireworks in the future!
I had a long discussion at a party with Dave Heckman of Metropolis records last summer, when the issue was the net radio royalties. He's a big supporter of those royalties, he likes the checks he gets from SoundExchange each month.
This isn't purely a RIAA issue; there are a lot of other independent labels who also want to get these royalties. It's a much more complex issue than is being let on here, a large part of the reason US rightsholders (in most cases, the labels) want the sound recording performance right is so that US artists can start getting their cut of the royalties that are paid in the rest of the world. When a US recording gets played in the EU, for instance, the broadcaster over there is paying. But the royalty doesn't get distributed to the US artists because the US doesn't collect and distribute to Euro rightsholders.
In fact, A2IM, the American Association of Independent Music supports a sound recording performance right. Most of their members support this as well.
(Disclaimer, SomaFM is an associate member of A2IM)
If done fairly, this royalty is fine. The composers of songs are already getting paid; why shouldn't the person who owns the copyright of the sound recording?
The problem is that for webcasters, these rates were set insanely high; and based on metrics that don't make sense (per song, per listeners) and metrics that couldn't even be accurately tracked for over-the-air radio. (One can argue they can't be accurately tracked for net radio either- you don't know how many people are listening to one stream; or if the volume is muted but the stream is playing, etc).
The rate will probably end up at about 3% of revenues. There will be good exemptions for non-commercial broadcasters and small community stations. But these are the pieces that have to be negotiated. That's where people who hold a stake in the outcome of all this need to be talking and negotiating now.
Well, I don't know about most, but I do know that Ottawa has a decent talk radio station. It's got a fairly heavy Conservative slant, and Lowell Green can be vicious to some of his callers, but it's great for news, and generally worth listening to for municipal, provincial, and federal politics news.
Cynical Idealist
If you read TFA, you would notice that it clearly states that "Small commercial stations would only pay $5,000 a year, and nonprofit stations like NPR would pay only $1,000 a year. Talk radio and religious broadcasts would pay nothing." So you definitely have to pay, even if you're nonprofit.
Cynical Idealist
what are you talking about?
nicklecrap is justin timberlake-esque crap. Cheap, and mass produced with no talent.
The singer just screams, and all the songs have the same or similar beat.
Here, in case you've had your head under the sand.
http://www.thewebshite.net/nickelback.htm
They want you to pay them for them merely existing. Just their holy presence warrants them being paid billions, never mind the music or entertainment, they just want money without doing anything for it, why do you think the *AA's keep trying to create "anti-piracy" bills that ensure that they have direct access to taxpayer money for no good reason at all? or that force the consumer to pay them even if they dont buy their music because you buy some recordable media?
:)
It's no longer about music, it's about unwarranted self-importance and spoiled little brats who have grown up, taken over daddy's job, and just want everything given to them, and the lawyers love it. This is starting to ring true for other industries too.
"We don't have to provide supply, but we demand money."
I'm sorry, but business works where you provide a good or service and the customer pays, Not the customer pays you for free.
They keep up this shit, they're going to be gone soon enough, too many lawsuits, and smart new production companies will jump on this and eventually edge these little brats off the market. Since production equipment is simpler and cheaper these days, The real money will be in getting hired by the band to make it sound good, or they do it themselves.
I honestly wont miss any of the music that stops getting played because of this, because, for the most part, it all sucks these days, and what I dont have on CD or in mp3 format, I dont listen to anyway
I'm sorry but after hearing a verse from a song that whore, Fergie, sung, "I'll miss you like a child misses his blanket", I've completely given up on any "mainstream" music other than the really old stuff, because nowadays, they don't care about the quality or the shit they're putting out, hence, my initial statement in this comment.
You raised some interesting points, and I would like to briefly take a look at each of them.
Note that you seem awfully flustered as if you were taking this personally. The thread prior to this was civil and even tempered. Are you Chad Kroeger? If not you should try to be more objective. Slashdot is unapologetically intellectual - embrace that.
Concerning your PS: I understand that you were responding to the majority opinion here and not to me in particular. However, as it turns out, I was really the wrong person to respond to, mostly because I alone of all those posts made no direct qualitative claims about Nickelback or pop music as a whole. I merely made claims about the general perception of Nickelback within my circles of influence. This was done specifically in order to avoid a response like yours (so much for that). I can only assume that you responded to me because I was modded the highest, and therefore gave you the largest opportunity of being read.
Furthermore, I think you are grossly misrepresenting my analysis in particular. First mispresentation: I was joining my parent post in support of many RIAA-affiliated bands. I agreed with him that many great acts have been, are, and will be associated with the RIAA out of necessity. Even many of the obscure ones. Second misrepresentation; As I mentioned before, I made no qualitative claims about Nickelback, Pop, or Radiohead. I merely explained the normal perception around here about these three things.
Now that I have established how my post did not actually explain my personal viewpoints, allow me to do so now. I am convinced that there are objective standards for music, just as there are objective standards for food and beverages (and yes, McDonalds does not fair will with objective analysis). I have no problem with making great allowances for taste; but at the end of the day, I think that some music can objectively be categorized as good music, and some vice versa. Sometimes, I determine a song/artist/album to be 'good', but unpleasing to me. I think that if more people could make that kind of distinction ('I like it' vs 'it is good'), the world would be a better place. As for the standards by which music ought to be judged; I think these are too numerous and complicated to discuss here. However, I can provide at least one metric by which I judge music; originality. This is one of the metrics that Nickelback blatantly fails. They haven't even managed to be original within their own catalog. That's really a cardinal sin when making music. If I wanted to hear the same song again and again, I wouldn't need to buy more than one CD in my lifetime. I like meatloaf, bubblegum, McDonald's hamburgers, pizza, Mountain Dew, and pop music. It is quite funny that pop music is the only item in this list that doesn't go in your mouth. You should vary your examples more. Not because it's what's been forced down their throats, but because they didn't study enough to learn that they're not supposed to like it--whatever the fuck that means. Consider the possibility that when people mature in certain kinds of ways, their taste changes without the influence of peer pressure. An apt metaphor: I am told that in my first year of life, I was content to crawl around on the ground as my primary ambulation. At some point, I started walking, and now I much prefer that. I am fairly positive that my preference for walking is not a result of mimicking people around me who walk but rather an objectively better form a travel that I would have eventually reasoned through on my own.
Anyway, this is a discussing worth having. Feel free to email me if you want; just leave the emotion at the proverbial door.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
Well said.
I always say that if the music is so bad why do people download it? And if folk think its really all crap, why do they even care about RIAA or Sony rookkits? Its not like it will affect them now is it.
Some of the bands that are comming out now are not that bad, and some are pretty good. IMO
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Heh, like I said, I used to play it, but that was only two hours a week. Except when I got them to play industrial comps on prime-time programming. Nothing like spicing up that weak-ass college rock with some FLA. Thanks for the links...I'll have to try a few out (I'm familiar with DG, but I hadn't heard of the rest...though I'm not big into future pop).
Well, the idea is, talk radio would still be allowed to play a song or two for a promo, or an opening, but they wouldn't have to pay for it, because, strictly speaking, it's not their business to play music.
Cynical Idealist
What are you talking about? G.G. Allin sold out the minute he didn't shoot himself on stage at the height of his fame. Drug overdose? Come on, what rock star hasn't died that way?
Should a restaurant owner, who is only the legal owner of the restaurant, be making more money than the people who run the restaurant? I don't know; did he contribute any talent, any effort, to the construction or running of the restaurant? Does the record company contribute more to the CD than the artist does? Should a singer or guitar play with an appreciable level of talent (that is, enough that people want to buy his music without an expert marketing team convincing them to) make less money per album than the company that manufactures CD's?
What does a record company contribute to an album? Unless the record company employs puts more talent and effort into producing the album than the artist does, why should they receive 10 times more of the profit from the album than the artist? It is hard to make that argument for most of today's popular music, since the majority of the talent in the album is in marketing and convincing people that it is actually worth paying to listen to, but that is just a natural result of large media companies.
I know, it sounds crazy in this country, with our progressive, modern society, that people who have talent in anything other than business making more money than people with business skills.
Palm trees and 8
[snip]
My band - Simeon After listening to your shitty band, I can objectively say that you lack the taste AND objective ability to categorize good/bad music.
BTW, Nickelback's music does suck (in my tasteless opinion), but they're swell, humble guys. Calling them "sellouts" says a lot about you.
"Someday, there will be a thread about the RIAA without all this elitist bullshit. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH POP?"
The RIAA.
"Music is not the center of my life, nor is it the apex of the arts. It's enjoyable noise that makes my commute more pleasant. You don't like pop? Fine. The rest of the world does. Not because it's what's been forced down their throats"...
You contradicted yourself right there. You listen to it because it's there during your commute. But it's not forced down peoples throats. Anyway, I think "forced down throats" is a bit strong, but in fact there is a tendency for people to just like whatever the radio is playing at that time; hell, people used to even listen to disco on the radio.
"Ask yourself this: pick any band you like. Imagine they get picked up by the RIAA. Does that make their music bad?"
It doesn't help. Most bands, if you can find their pre-RIAA works and their post-RIAA works, the later works sound much more homogenous and average. They generally are given advice and tweaks to how they should sound during record production that makes them sound more average and mainstream, losing some of what makes that band's music unique.
Anyway, I think if the radio stations started to break the RIAA habbit, well, some slashdotters seem to think it'll make all the radio stations sound like college stations, playing all indy style music. Really I think there's enough amateur bands that sound pop-like that if a radio station wanted to stay all-pop without the RIAA they could. I wonder if this could drive a nail in the RIAA -- stations could be interested in paying low or no fees to play other people's music (advertising the band and it's music in effect). This is in fact why the current RIAA arrangement exists -- at least in the past, they were smart enough to realize free air play sold music.
You contradicted yourself right there. You listen to it because it's there during your commute. But it's not forced down peoples throats.
Wrong. I don't listen to the radio when I drive. I use my iPod. Half of what's on my iPod is rap that can't be played on the radio.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Hi there,
;-) (And even then, only half the comments.)
I appreciate your thoughtful post.
Are you Chad Kroeger?
Nope.
If not you should try to be more objective. Slashdot is unapologetically intellectual - embrace that.
Sounds like you never read below +5.
Anyway, this is a discussing worth having.
True, and I enjoy good conversation, and you sound like you'd be fun to have this discussion with--I agree with most of what you're saying here, but there a few nits I'd like to pick--but I've got two jobs and an almost-2-year-old baby soaking up most of my free time. Good luck with the band.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.