The world is changing. In some ways it’s for the better, in some ways for the worse, and in some ways, it’s just change, neither better nor worse.
I am selling some of my beloved CD’s. Music is my life. I’d hate to think how much money I’ve spent on it in my lifetime, but I’ve always lived for the next great song, the next great record, or the next great tour. But reality hits. I don’t have time to listen to all these CD’s first of all. Between working my day job for 10-11 hours a day, attempting to be a decent father and husband, and good ‘ol sleep, there is rarely a whole hour in a day where I can sit and listen to a record beginning-to-end. I still love music, I still get all tingly listening to a great song I’ve never heard, but there is the time factor. There is also the space factor. It’s much easier ripping them on them onto my hard drive, or downloading them. That way I get my music without tripping over it when it is dark.
It’s changing for the ‘ol radio too. Congress, with bi-partisan support seems to be pushing through a bill called the Performance Rights Act, which would force terrestrial radio to not only pay songwriter royalties, but also to pay those who actually performed the song. That way, the twelve people who wrote the latest Britney hit wouldn’t be the only ones getting paid, but Britney and her backup musicians would get paid, also. Most of the other music platforms already pay this out, but for whatever reason, terrestrial radio has been spared. It sounds pretty logical to do something like this. It’s hard to debate the fact that singers and musicians should be compensated when their music is played for profit. If you understand, however, the condition that terrestrial radio is in, perhaps this debate isn’t so black and white.
I grew up listening to top-40 radio on the car speakers, and from the radio at home. In my 'tween years, I was able to discover FM radio, where I was turned onto Queen, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, and Pink Floyd. It was also where I discovered alternative music toward the end of high school on KROQ. In college, I began to seek out little college radio stations like KXLU and NPR where they played, and continue to play cutting-edge music. I loved the radio, but somewhere between now and then, it changed. The few Los Angeles area-stations that aren’t talk radio or Spanish-speaking are more tightly formatted than an Imodium AD capsule. No one gets played if they’re not some Jordin Sparks-type flavor of the month. Classic rock and alternative stations are as tightly formatted as the Top 40 stations. It’s a guarantee you will hear “Whole Lotta Love” or “Bohemian Rhapsody” at least twice a day, or if alternative is your taste, let’s just hope you’re a Foo Fighters fan who likes the same four songs. In between this, there are tons and tons of commercials, and more on the way.
Yes, I know free radio has to pay the bills. Commercials do this, so does (hopefully) playing songs that they know connect with people. The fans of terrestrial radio are declining. Some fans are turned off by the extensive commercials or the force-feeding of music programmers. Others are into XM or Sirius, which have more choices and fewer commercials. There is also internet and cable radio. Music fans are also becoming increasingly balkanized. Each type of music has their niche, and fewer and fewer people wish to step outside of it. As a result artists are increasingly marketing to the already converted, as opposed to preaching to a new audience who probably doesn’t care. Look at Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead. Both release records over the last couple of years that were quite successful with little or no free radio airplay or mainstream promotion. There are many others like them, and it is hurting traditional radio.
The passage of this bill, while perhaps not a death knell to terrestrial music radio will cost them more, and the listener will have to deal with more commercials, even tighter programming, and less stations that play popular music. Some will go dark, some will go ranchera or nortena, some will go talk, and others will go dark. The radio people are fighting this tooth-and-nail.
"It's a bad idea in a good economy. It's a horrible idea in the economy we're facing right now," said Kris Jones, a spokesman for the broadcasters' association.
Dennis Wharton, the association's executive vice president of media relations, called the Performance Rights Act "the biggest threat to radio in 50 years."
The millions — and probably billions — of dollars in annual performance fees could prompt stations to lay off workers, decrease charitable donations, convert to all-talk formats or go dark, Wharton said.
To the musicians and record companies, it is an issue of fairness. In virtually all other formats, the performers do get a cut of the royalty pie. It has its share of big name supporters- Sheryl Crow, Nancy Sinatra, will.i.am, Herbie Hancock, Billy Corgan and others have appeared in front of Congress to support it.
Corgan, the leader of The Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress what a fan of radio he was. “I was able to find an audience, in no small measure, because of the long support of my music by terrestrial radio. I am a big fan of radio, and am interested in its continued health and well-being.”
While he acknowledged that songwriters were compensated, it was his thought that the performers should get their cut also.
“If the performance of a song has particular value to a terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work. Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and performer should be paid.”
It’s by no means a done deal. Over 200 lawmakers have signed on to the Local Radio Freedom Act, a non-binding resolution that declares opposition to "any new performance fee, tax, royalty or other charge on radio for music airplay."
Every story has more to it than it seems. While many of us still rely on traditional radio for their music, it is in decline, and it has its issues. For instance, there is no way on God’s green earth that radio programmers would take a chance on a band like The Smashing Pumpkins these days, but on the other hand, bands like The Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails, and Radiohead, along with countless other artists, have fine, lucrative careers without traditional radio exposure.
Should we dodge the fairness question to prop up a fading dinosaur? Or should we also subtly help another fading dinosaur, the large record companies, who stand to score big bucks if the resolution passes through. Many of these performers have record contracts where the record company scoops up a large percentage of the profits. It is not as easy as it seems to answer this question.
The one thing is certain, though, times are changing. Whether you are some middle-aged guy trading in his CD’s, a radio programmer scared for your job, or a country singer whose sole mis-fortune was not writing his own songs, the times are changing. Some ways for the better, some ways for the worse, some ways neither.
I am selling some of my beloved CD’s. Music is my life. I’d hate to think how much money I’ve spent on it in my lifetime, but I’ve always lived for the next great song, the next great record, or the next great tour. But reality hits. I don’t have time to listen to all these CD’s first of all. Between working my day job for 10-11 hours a day, attempting to be a decent father and husband, and good ‘ol sleep, there is rarely a whole hour in a day where I can sit and listen to a record beginning-to-end. I still love music, I still get all tingly listening to a great song I’ve never heard, but there is the time factor. There is also the space factor. It’s much easier ripping them on them onto my hard drive, or downloading them. That way I get my music without tripping over it when it is dark.
It’s changing for the ‘ol radio too. Congress, with bi-partisan support seems to be pushing through a bill called the Performance Rights Act, which would force terrestrial radio to not only pay songwriter royalties, but also to pay those who actually performed the song. That way, the twelve people who wrote the latest Britney hit wouldn’t be the only ones getting paid, but Britney and her backup musicians would get paid, also. Most of the other music platforms already pay this out, but for whatever reason, terrestrial radio has been spared. It sounds pretty logical to do something like this. It’s hard to debate the fact that singers and musicians should be compensated when their music is played for profit. If you understand, however, the condition that terrestrial radio is in, perhaps this debate isn’t so black and white.
I grew up listening to top-40 radio on the car speakers, and from the radio at home. In my 'tween years, I was able to discover FM radio, where I was turned onto Queen, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, and Pink Floyd. It was also where I discovered alternative music toward the end of high school on KROQ. In college, I began to seek out little college radio stations like KXLU and NPR where they played, and continue to play cutting-edge music. I loved the radio, but somewhere between now and then, it changed. The few Los Angeles area-stations that aren’t talk radio or Spanish-speaking are more tightly formatted than an Imodium AD capsule. No one gets played if they’re not some Jordin Sparks-type flavor of the month. Classic rock and alternative stations are as tightly formatted as the Top 40 stations. It’s a guarantee you will hear “Whole Lotta Love” or “Bohemian Rhapsody” at least twice a day, or if alternative is your taste, let’s just hope you’re a Foo Fighters fan who likes the same four songs. In between this, there are tons and tons of commercials, and more on the way.
Yes, I know free radio has to pay the bills. Commercials do this, so does (hopefully) playing songs that they know connect with people. The fans of terrestrial radio are declining. Some fans are turned off by the extensive commercials or the force-feeding of music programmers. Others are into XM or Sirius, which have more choices and fewer commercials. There is also internet and cable radio. Music fans are also becoming increasingly balkanized. Each type of music has their niche, and fewer and fewer people wish to step outside of it. As a result artists are increasingly marketing to the already converted, as opposed to preaching to a new audience who probably doesn’t care. Look at Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead. Both release records over the last couple of years that were quite successful with little or no free radio airplay or mainstream promotion. There are many others like them, and it is hurting traditional radio.
The passage of this bill, while perhaps not a death knell to terrestrial music radio will cost them more, and the listener will have to deal with more commercials, even tighter programming, and less stations that play popular music. Some will go dark, some will go ranchera or nortena, some will go talk, and others will go dark. The radio people are fighting this tooth-and-nail.
"It's a bad idea in a good economy. It's a horrible idea in the economy we're facing right now," said Kris Jones, a spokesman for the broadcasters' association.
Dennis Wharton, the association's executive vice president of media relations, called the Performance Rights Act "the biggest threat to radio in 50 years."
The millions — and probably billions — of dollars in annual performance fees could prompt stations to lay off workers, decrease charitable donations, convert to all-talk formats or go dark, Wharton said.
To the musicians and record companies, it is an issue of fairness. In virtually all other formats, the performers do get a cut of the royalty pie. It has its share of big name supporters- Sheryl Crow, Nancy Sinatra, will.i.am, Herbie Hancock, Billy Corgan and others have appeared in front of Congress to support it.
Corgan, the leader of The Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress what a fan of radio he was. “I was able to find an audience, in no small measure, because of the long support of my music by terrestrial radio. I am a big fan of radio, and am interested in its continued health and well-being.”
While he acknowledged that songwriters were compensated, it was his thought that the performers should get their cut also.
“If the performance of a song has particular value to a terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work. Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and performer should be paid.”
It’s by no means a done deal. Over 200 lawmakers have signed on to the Local Radio Freedom Act, a non-binding resolution that declares opposition to "any new performance fee, tax, royalty or other charge on radio for music airplay."
Every story has more to it than it seems. While many of us still rely on traditional radio for their music, it is in decline, and it has its issues. For instance, there is no way on God’s green earth that radio programmers would take a chance on a band like The Smashing Pumpkins these days, but on the other hand, bands like The Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails, and Radiohead, along with countless other artists, have fine, lucrative careers without traditional radio exposure.
Should we dodge the fairness question to prop up a fading dinosaur? Or should we also subtly help another fading dinosaur, the large record companies, who stand to score big bucks if the resolution passes through. Many of these performers have record contracts where the record company scoops up a large percentage of the profits. It is not as easy as it seems to answer this question.
The one thing is certain, though, times are changing. Whether you are some middle-aged guy trading in his CD’s, a radio programmer scared for your job, or a country singer whose sole mis-fortune was not writing his own songs, the times are changing. Some ways for the better, some ways for the worse, some ways neither.
No comments:
Post a Comment