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.
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.
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
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.
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
No kidding. How the scales have shifted. My favorite quotes (paraphrasing from memory):
Harry Shearer eulogizing on the "genius" of the departed Sonny Bono (a promoter as well as a performer) after his skiing into a tree: "How much 'genius' does it take to meet on Monday morning to decide how to spread the payola around?"
Randi Rhodes: "Being a disk jockey, you know the _really_ cool promos -- one ones that came with the little packet of cocaine."
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.
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'
It kind of looks like junior took over the "family business" and never really learned the ropes. He doesn't understand why the old man did the things the old ways, so figures now that he's in charge he doesn't have to play by those rules. Probably thinks it's brilliant business. But of course, as he makes a string of bad decisions and revenues drop, he has to find someone to blame. Couldn't be his own fault...
Ok, seriously... the radio exemption is sound marketing and worked as such for years. (Hint -- it isn't the raw quality of the music that makes Top 40 into Top 40.) Of course, I tend toward a free market view -- so if the labels don't want free advertising, maybe they shouldn't be forced to take it. Treating your advertising medium like a consumer doesn't make a lot of sense, but barring a shareholder lawsuit they shouldn't be compelled to make good business decisions.
Of course, there is an argument about equitable treatment. For decades the radio stations have built their own businesses around being the free advertiser of mainstream music. What exactly is the radio station to do if not play music to promote it? Not the labels' problem? Well, maybe, but then the labels did benefit from the radio stations' putting themselves in this position.
The bottom line is, radio play doesn't compete with a CD purchase or a download. As a consumer, I don't have control over the next song on the radio. I don't have control over when the radio plays music at all, vs. when they play other advertisements, news, other random talk, etc. That's what you get when you buy music -- the right to hear what you want when you want (current overzealous copyright interpretations notwtihstanding).
Same holds for satelite radio, and by all rights the exemption should've been extended to them. With internet radio, you could stray into a gray area, but as long as they're centrally controlled and stream their content, they should be in the same boat. The underlying technology behind the broadcast is irrelevant.
Sorry, but artists just like NICKLEBACK are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
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."
"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.
For many of us, collecting and listening to music is a hobby. My wife and I very rarely watch television, and have no interest in what the opinions of talk radio people. We have music playing at our desks at work and in our house for about 18 hours a day. It is our preferred form of entertainment. So it's not "over rated" it's a lifestyle choice.
Your television will not tell you when to start the revolution.
Radio is a bit different, however. With all of the other forms of advertising you mentioned, the consumer is making a deliberate choice to attend a specific concert or buy a specific CD. The consumer already has an idea of the music he or she wishes to buy. With radio, this is not necessarily the case - radio is nonspecific, and therefore is likely the medium in which the first exposure to new music will occur.
Now, different arguments can be made as to what a consumer buys when he purchases a CD. The music itself, certainly - but he can already listen to that for free by waiting for it to appear on the radio. In my opinion, what the consumer buys when he buys a CD is choice - the choice to listen to a particular song whenever he wishes rather than waiting for it to appear whenever a radio station plays it. The radio then becomes the advertisement for this purchase.
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).
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 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
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...
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
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
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
Sorry, but you're displaying a fundamental lack of understanding about how radio works (from a financial point of view), along with a lack of knowledge of radio history. Understandable, because no one knows this stuff anymore except for telecom geeks.
Playing music over the radio has, since it's inception, been about advertising to promote sales of music (records, sheet music), advertising to promote attendance at live events, and to provide programming to attract listeners for, of course, advertising other goods and services. In the last case, think of how flowers use nectar to attract bees. Giving away nectar is just a cost of doing business if you want to be polinated.
Of course, it isn't a perfect analogy, because unlike flowers, radio stations aren't producing what they're giving away.
What radio explicitely hasn't been is a revenue source for song performers. Song writers, absolutely. I'll leave it up to you to look up the ASCAP / BMI controversy of 1939/1940.
In fact, what is amazing about this is that, were the RIAA's proposal to be adopted, it would end up setting up a system exactly the opposite of the Payola scandal, where record producers paid / bribed radio station employees and execs to play records.
I also have to wondeder what ASCAP and BMI will think of this. If this proposal results in a drop in radio play, then payments to songwriters (as opposed to song performers) will fall.
Oh, and this could definitely blow up in the RIAA's face. Clear Channel, Infinity and the like are notorious for being very, very tough business people. If this proposal goes through, and if they aren't able to negotiate a miniscule enough rate per play, I wouldn't put it past them to start buying up the larger RIAA members, just to get their music catalogs. Would there be anti-trust implications? Sure. Would it be worth a few tens of millions here or there to try. Absolutely.
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.
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
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 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.
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!
At least when you listen to music you're not assaulted by the utter stupidity from the kinds of people who call into talk radio. The kind of utterly brain-dead retardation that goes on on those programs is good for a laugh, for a while. Then it just makes me sad, very sad about the state of the world.
With music there's a little rhythm to put a kick in your step, and some melodies to put a smile on your face.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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
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
Well I wasn't so much defending radio as I am music. Yeah music on the radio sucks, unless you're lucky enough to get a good jazz station(KCCK). On the other hand there's this thing called the Live Music Archive, where you can fill your music player with hours upon hours of live music from talented musicians. Go download some Steve Kimock, Oteil Burbridge, or Hot Buttered Rum and tell me you're not happier at the end of the day.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's a personal preference - I like Vanilla Ice cream...
Wow. You had me worried, then I saw "cream" at the end of that.
Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
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.
On the other hand there's this thing called the Live Music Archive, where you can fill your music player with hours upon hours of live music from talented musicians.
Here is the link to the Live Music Archive in case anyone is interested.
Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
- 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.