Musicians want radio stations to pay to play tunes

[babylonsister]

Musicians want radio stations to pay to play tunes

By ANN SANNER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sheryl Crow, will.i.am, Herbie Hancock and other entertainers on Tuesday urged Congress to force radio stations to pay performers when their music is broadcast.

Satellite radio, Internet radio and cable TV music channels already pay fees to performers and musicians, along with songwriter royalties. AM and FM radio stations do not pay performers' royalties, just songwriters.

"People deserve to be paid when somebody else uses their property," Hancock said.

He and the other musicians, including Dionne Warwick and Patti LaBelle, appeared at a news conference on Capitol Hill on behalf of the musicFIRST Coalition. The group is pushing legislation that would require radio stations to pay musicians royalties similar to those paid to songwriters.

The National Association of Broadcasters, who oppose the measure, said a fee would put thousands of radio jobs at risk. The association also argues that stations drive listeners to buy music and concert tickets.

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RADIO_ROYALTIES?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Mike 03]

1. Wow, talk about a dilema. Ninety out of 100 times, I only get inspired to buy a CD because I

heard it on the radio. In fact, that's the only place I hear new music (other than movie soundtracks, which I hear when I watch the movies, obviously).

And lately, XM and SIRIUS or online streaming are the only ways I get my audio information. (Or tips from my niece, who is wonderfully in tune with who is hot right now musically.)

[GA_ArmyVet]

30. Do it...Let them realize that the radio paying the songs is how

most people discover the songs they want to buy. Once the radio stations stop paying them, other artist who want to get heard will get offer their music for free and we will get a lot of original music instead of this corporate, pop hit generated crap.

(on edit I was responding to Original Post..hit the wrong button, my apologies)

[Deja Q]

33. or youtube. In reality, there is no dilemma:

The recording artists should bicker and bleat to the record labels that rape them out of every excess penny. (We all know most musicians make the real money on tours...)

We are not the problem, but for all the cant of boycotting, if everybody did the artists would rue the day they pull stupid stunts like this. That's what the RIAA is supposed to be for.

[lame54]

2. why don't they try writing their own songs?

[MadBadger]

3. I completely disagree with this and am quite surprised for these three

First of all, when they have new songs out, the radio does those musicians a favor to play their stuff because it sells albums.

[dysfunctional press]

4. isn't that what ascap is supposed to be all about?

:shrug:

[musette_sf]

5. ASCAP pays the songwriters

not the performers.

[madrchsod]

6. the son of.payola .....

biting the hand that feeds them.

[Xithras]

8. Actually, it would cause "reverse payola".

Two possibilities:

A: Capitalism run amok.

Label X declares that it wants $1 every day their signed artists song is played on the radio. Label Y comes in and declares that it will let the radio stations play its artists songs for only 50 cents a day. The radio station responds by playing more music from Label Y, and less from Label X. Artists, who want to hit it big and get exposure, start dumping X and go to Y. Label Z bursts onto the scene and announces that it will let stations play its music for only 5 cents a day per artist. The radio station dumps all non-Z programming and plays only artists from that label. The artists, realizing that their songs won't get played anymore, flee to Z. Label Z now controls the market while X and Y go out of business.

B. The WalMart effect.

Labels X, Y, and Z declare that they each want $1 every day that their artists songs are played on the radio. The radio station offers .20 cents, but the labels balk. The radio station goes to Label X and tells them that they'll play their songs 3x more often if they'll reduce the fee to .95 cents a day. Label X, seeing opportunity, agrees. Radio station goes to Label Y and points out to them that their music is now getting only 1/3 of the exposure of their competitors music, but assures them that they can get back on even footing if they'll just reduce their fee to .89 cents a song. And on, and on.

In either scenario, you end up with the radio stations making programming decisions based on the economics of playing music from a particular artist. Expensive artists will get played less, and cheap artists will get played more. Free artists will be on continuous rotation.

The artists are forgetting one important thing here. Radio stations can always convert to sports talk, politalk, or even play local groups who will be glad for the exposure if they decide to play hardball. Musicians without exposure have NO such options.

[madrchsod]

42. yes it would be..

i was trying to figure out how to word it but i gave up...

[Berry Cool]

7. It's gonna be a thorny situation.

For example, would session musicians have to be paid? Would musicians who played on a recording made 50 years ago who might not all be identifiable or locatable--if they could not all be located and paid, would it no longer be permissible to play that recording on the radio? Just a few of the questions that would need answering.

[spanone]

9. what? people want to get paid for what they do? i'm shocked!!!

[MadHound]

10. Great, more greed from the music industry

And these people wonder why their shit gets copied, downloaded and taped.

The thing is, these artists need radio stations to get their music out there. If there's no exposure to the public, how the hell do they expect people to be able to judge whether or not they want to buy it.

This would put a number of radio stations under, especially non-profit community stations and college stations.

Greedy assholes, yes indeed.

[msongs]

11. something for nothing thieves can get even - make their own music :-) nt

[conscious evolution]

13. You and Lame54 have the best suggestion

Let them write their own music.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

16. The record companies and many artists have completely lost the plot

The record companies saw fit to punish the listeners for file sharing and they wonder why record sales are at an all time low. Many artist are now jumping on board and trying to squeeze listeners for all they are worth. Bad idea all around.

[HooptieWagon]

47. People should just turn off the radio and go hear local live music.

Buy the band a round of beers (and buy a CD). MUCH more fun!... and cuts out the greedy middle-men.

[NeedleCast]

12. I'd like to see how far these artists would have gotten without "free" radio play

[spiritual_gunfighter]

14. My music is played on the radio every now and then

And I get a check from ASCAP every year because I write the material. I most definitely would like to get paid twice, but I don't agree with this at all. The NAB is right and this would insure that you would never hear music on the radio anymore. All talk formats all the time. Don't agree with this at all.

[shadowknows69]

18. Get out!!!! (Insert "Seinfeld" Elaine push here)

Who are you? Don't be shy! We have a Star in our midst DU. Respect!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

35. I am hardly a star

But I manage to make a meager living off of music (along with a part time job I have when I am not on tour). I am in a band called Doleful Lions on the indie label Parasol Records. I get played on indie radio mostly but every now and then some of my music manages to sneak on to commercial radio but not that often. I make most of my money touring all the time, for artist like myself that is where you make your money, unfortunately.

[SoCalDem]

15. and to think that not too long ago, the scandal du jour was MUSICIANS

paying radio station to play their songs:rofl:

[shadowknows69]

17. What the fuck is ASCAP/BMI?

I thought they were the ones dilligently securing the artists money for them. They were on a crusade here a while back charging bars for jukebox usage, bands and DJs

[spanone]

20. those organizations collect on behalf of songwriters, not artists

so when a song is played in on the radio or in bars etc., the writers get paid but the performers do not.

[shadowknows69]

24. Many writers get paid shit anyway, particularly the pools that create "Country Hits"

Maybe the singers and songwriters should be on the same team/band, then they could share the wealth.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

31. Yes you are basically right

ASCAP/BMI tabulate radio plays, public performances or any other time a publishers music is played and pay out funds to those said publishers. Yes they did go on a pretty lame crusade a few years ago pertaining to jukebox plays to secure even more money for their publishing houses. I didn't think it was that much of a big deal and I guess really only helped the biggest artists (which is who they really go to bat for anyway).

[cobalt1999]

19. That's strange, I figure they should be paying me to listen to half the crap that's broadcasted now.

I want some more money too!

[spanone]

21. think about it...radio 'produces no product'...they play music other people make & sell ad time

now why shouldn't the people who MADE THE PRODUCT get paid for it?

[Edweird]

40. What you're not getting is that a song played on the radio is an ADVERTISEMENT

for that band. An enticement to go purchase the album or single (which benefits the record label and not the artist - but that's a whole other ball of wax). Not so long ago bands were paying to have their songs played on the radio; that's how important it was to their success.

[MADem]

22. Fuck them. Not to be rude, but if they get the money there, the consumer should be

able to download a quality copy of the song from the radio for free. As it is, people have to PAY to listen to the radio in many locations, because all the over-the-air stations are drying up.

Radio stations used to play music and that would encourage people to buy the records. Once upon a time, everyone, from eight to eighty, knew what the top forty tunes were. Even people who groused about that hip swivelling Elvis could sing along when no one was around. Everyone knew every word to every Supremes song.

Nowadays, music is so...fragmented. There are little niche interest areas but there isn't this thing called "popular music" anymore. There are a million soon-to-be-forgotten "stars" and a lot of them (Britney Spears, e.g.) can't sing their way out of a paper bag--they flat out suck without the "vocal track" when they're performing (cough, choke) "live"...without electronic manipulation they sound like your tone-deaf teen ager bellowing in the shower.

Cheryl Crow just got a ton of money from one of those banks that the feds bailed out. She did a corporate gig for them, as they partied after accepting government largesse. She's not starving.

[spanone]

23. why should you get to download an artists music for free? do you work for free?

[MADem]

26. If they get paid for their song being played, and you pay for the radio signal,

you should get something out of the bargain.

I never got paid twice for doing something once.

It seems to me the listener is paying through the nose every month, and the radio station is paying the artist, and what's the listener getting in return? Some jerk interrupting the song, shaving seconds off the beginning and end with mindless patter and commercials--the consumer is getting screwed.

[TheMightyFavog]

25. That would kill college radio.

Bad idea.

[MADem]

27. It would kill community access radio, too. NT

[MrSlayer]

28. They can play my music for free. I'll take the exposure.

This is sort of backward.

[and-justice-for-all]

29. Are those artist poor or something...??

I am pretty confident that those people are quite comfortable and well off.

Indeed they do drive people to buy the disc or a few songs as well as concert tickets. However the genre of music I listen too is nothing like those folks, I listen to Metal and we all know the amount of mainstream air time that gets.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

32. Only the most successful rock stars that everyone knows

are comfortable and well off. Most musicians struggle to make money on their music. But this idea is really only going to benefit the Lil Waynes and Britney Spears of the universe.

[Deja Q]

36. In which case Little Wang and Bitchy Stew can bugger off.

They aren't real musicians in the first place... and they're the ones I last want to see benefit from the greed postulated in the article put up by the OP.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

37. Agreed

But those are the type of artists (a very loose term) that will benefit from this.

[babylonsister]

39. ...

:rofl: Who the hell are they? My age is showing. Little Wang and Bitchy Stew? :wtf:

[KamaAina]

34. Aren't they supposed to get paid by the labels?

Performers, at least the ones in the big time like those mentioned, get recording contracts from their labels. The composers and songwriters represented by ASCAP and BMI do not. It's apples and oranges.

[Elwood P Dowd]

38. I have purchased thousands of record albums and CDs since the 1950s.

Probably half were purchased after hearing a song on the radio. I remember around 1971 or 1972 hearing a new group called America singing "Horse With No Name" on my radio as I was driving around Washington, DC. Less than an hour later I was in a record store buying the album. The sales clerk said I bought their first copy - a green label Warner Brothers that I still have. Or, around 1973 I was driving around Atlanta and heard Phoebe Snow "Poetry Man" on 96 Rock. Bought the album before the day was over. That's just two examples of who knows how many from my 6 decades of buying music.

[Raineyb]

41. Who's going to pay me to listen to the radio?

Because it's hardly worth the time listening to it. I don't think I've listened to the radio over a year ever since I got an Ipod. And who wants to try to listen to music with the constant prattle that goes on. I used to record songs on the radio. Now you can't even hear the whole thing and this is supposed to induce me to buy more CDs? Yeah right! I don't think so.

Regards

[serrano2008]

43. This is a great idea...then, just add 10 more minutes of advertisements per hour to pay the artists

and they don't have time play songs anyways.

It's a win/win situation for Satellite Radio woohoo!

[cynatnite]

44. Oh, hell no...

I rely on the radio to help me pick music that I buy. If radio stations are forced to pay they will be forced to pass it on to either the listeners or the advertisers...maybe even both.

Radio is the advertising for the artists.

[HooptieWagon]

45. Fine - don't play their songs.

That'll only make room for more deserving artists who are begging for exposure, and will gladly allow their music to be broadcast for free.

[treestar]

46. Playing them on the radio is their advertisement to get people

to buy the record. And free at that.