Radio stations being charged to play songs?!

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

I heard there was a new law in congress that was going to force radio stations to pay the artist for all the songs they play. Already, smaller stations are saying they will go out of business if this happens. Smaller African American stations are especially hard hit. I know the 'pay the artist' thing has gone wild since the knocking of Napster and now people are threatened for listening on the computer and even playlist.com was hit up for it. But really, the radio stations? They have historically been the ADVERTISEMENT for the artist! They introduce new songs and albums, have the artists on the air when they come to town, announce when new albums come out and encourage people to listen and buy. They get free copies of albums intentionally sent out by artists and record companies for the purpose of getting exposure for the songs. In the days before internet, or even TV, this was how people found out about music they wanted to buy, and it still is to a large extent. If radio stations are forced to pay to play songs, will they? Or will some go under or just forget it? How will this affect the already lagging music industry?

Another undesirable result of this is that no radio station can afford to buy every song by every artist, meaning they will be offered packages by people who buy up rights to certain batches of songs and artists. This will only lead to radio becoming more boring and generic. Already I avoid my classic rock station because it's always just a handful of the same old songs by the same old artists, little variety, even among bands. I doubt they even have a playlist of 100 songs sometimes, they repeat the same ones so often. This means that no one is going to be able to dig deep for 'deep cuts' that were not in the package deal and many songs and artists will never be heard on the radio again. That is not a good advertisement for them, or good quality listening for us. Even older songs can sell when people hear a song on the radio and think, hey, I'm going to go buy that.

So my point is not only will this suck for stations and fans I can see it hurting more artists than it helps. This is bad for everyone.

 

[BVS]

With the exception of a few markets, radio is already dead.

A few morning shows, a few talk show, and very few real radio stations are surviving... the rest have already died or clear channel has turned them into a 10 song rotation jukebox.

Once again thanks Napster...

 

[phillyfan26]

I've never listened to the radio for music, ever, at any point in my life.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Once again thanks Napster...

Studies so far have suggested otherwise. People didn't suddenly stop listening to radio because Napster or P2P networks were around. Often times it was rather the radio stations' habit of playing less and less songs and repeating the hits all the time.

Both radio stations and the record industry like to blame the internet and mp3 for their misery when in fact they can blame themselves just as much.

 

[BVS]

Studies so far have suggested otherwise. People didn't suddenly stop listening to radio because Napster or P2P networks were around. Often times it was rather the radio stations' habit of playing less and less songs and repeating the hits all the time.

Both radio stations and the record industry like to blame the internet and mp3 for their misery when in fact they can blame themselves just as much.

Yes, that was meant to be slightly tongue in cheek. But I do think P2P has a big part of the blame as to why the industry as a whole doesn't make money. And when you don't make money you have no time for the little guy. So the Brittneys, the Rhiannas, and Nickelbacks are all we'll see and hear, and the rest we have to really search for... I just have the feeling that there are a lot of talented Ryan Adams-types that we will never hear from because they just can't make a living these days, but they would have been great underground artists in the 90's.

 

[bigjohn2441]

Nickelback

 

[cydewaze]

I thought that radio stations have always paid to play songs.

Oh well, shows you what I know!

 

[Liesje]

I actually started listening to a certain station again b/c someone else bought it and they play about 1/5 as many commercials as the other stations, there is NO talking other than announcing the songs or a new album/tour, and they do play a good variety relative to the other stations here.

I don't get why an artist would require a radio station to play their songs...it's like free PR! The station I listen to sometimes throws in songs that local bands give them.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

I don't get why an artist would require a radio station to play their songs...it's like free PR! The station I listen to sometimes throws in songs that local bands give them.

Exactly! That's the whole ignorance of the fee charging idea and the point I was trying to make. Ever since it's been around, radio has been a free advertisement for artists and how people found out what songs they liked and wanted to buy. I really even used to think that was the main purpose of radio!

I don't know for sure but I don't think it's the artists who are doing this, it's likely the RIAA again trying to find more ways to get money, after attacking the internet market, playlist.com, and even local bars who play music via loudspeaker or DJ. The methods used are only killing music more and more. For decades, no one charged for radio or bars, and the artists were still rich. Again this is only going to limit the songs played, as someone above said it's being reduced to a 10 song jukebox. Next thing you know they'll be sueing wedding singers and kids playing tapes at middle school dances.

 

[BVS]

I don't get why an artist would require a radio station to play their songs...it's like free PR! The station I listen to sometimes throws in songs that local bands give them.

It's the labels, not the artists. AND the thinking is that certain artists songs will be cheaper than others so that it gives unheard of bands the same chance at exposure than the Britneys' and Nickelbacks'...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I still listen to radio, especially when I'm walking (can listen to baseball too). I don't have an iPod , honestly I don't have too much desire for one. Just one more tech aggravation. If someone would do it all for me then maybe I did hook up my HDTV and HD box all by myself so maybe there's hope.

There's one independent station that I can still listen to and enjoy-other than that there are just too many commercials and top 40 fests. Radio will probably be a thing of the past in a few years, just like newspapers

 

[bigjohn2441]

i used to listen to howard stern on my way to college in the morning before he went to satellite.

 

[deep]

I listen to radio for music. That is why I prefer my Zune over my iPod. The Zune has a very good fm receiver. The music I listen to is on public radio. We have a good station in the L A market, KCRW.

I am using my iPhone to listen to radio more and more. With wi-fi there are apps that let you listen to almost any public station on the air. Many play non-clear channel rotation music.


But back to the topic of this thread. It looks like it will not pass in the House

Radio stations cheer Congressional opposition to new music fees

By Kristen Letsinger
Thursday, June 4, 2009

Saul Young/News Sentinel
A proposal to tax songs aired on radio hit a huge snag Wednesday in Congress, with a growing number of House members supporting the resolution against new broadcasting fees. The apparent defeat was a victory for Knoxville-area radio stations.

Some 220 House members of 435 total expressed their disapproval of the measure that would require radio stations to pay royalty fees on music played over the airwaves.

The resolution against any new fees is nonbinding, but indicates a lack of full Congressional support to pass legislation that record companies have been trying to push through the House.

House Resolution 848, known as the Performance Rights Act, calls for radio stations to pay the royalty fees to record companies for playing artists' music on air.

Stations with gross revenues of less than $1.25 million a year would have the option of paying a flat royalty fee of $5,000 per year,

while public broadcast stations could pay $1,000 per year.

Those fees may not seem like much of a burden. Once the fees are imposed they will try to ratchet them up.

I think we are better with no fees, the current system.

 

[Cleasai]

I was under the impression that radio stations have always have to pay for playing any recording longer than 30 seconds? They would pay via a monthly fee of sorts to a 3rd party business who then credits the record labels and their artists. That's not how it works already?

 

[deep]

I think that is true for 'everybody else', the 30 second rule. RIAA charges a fee, annual licence fee, that is distributed to artists base on some kind of survey of how often a song is played.
I know eating establishments that play music, and even business that have music on their "hold" telephone button are hit up to pay the fee,

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yes, that was meant to be slightly tongue in cheek. But I do think P2P has a big part of the blame as to why the industry as a whole doesn't make money. And when you don't make money you have no time for the little guy. So the Brittneys, the Rhiannas, and Nickelbacks are all we'll see and hear, and the rest we have to really search for... I just have the feeling that there are a lot of talented Ryan Adams-types that we will never hear from because they just can't make a living these days, but they would have been great underground artists in the 90's.

Well, a recent study under the authority of the EU has also asked users of P2P networks whether their buying habits have changed. And the result was that through P2P they became more aware of independent or non-mainstream artists who they bought albums from or supported in other ways. I don't see that much of a difference between the time pre-P2P and now in regards to how the labels promote artists. Back then just like today they are promoting the cash cows, i.e. mainstream artists who are already well known, while the rest can only hope to get some listeners.
Services like Jamendo etc. have helped independent music much more than the major labels will ever do. And those are living off, in part, the P2P networks and the internet.
Back in the 90s, before the internet was something everyone used, the makeup of popular music was not that much different.

 

[BVS]

Well, a recent study under the authority of the EU has also asked users of P2P networks whether their buying habits have changed. And the result was that through P2P they became more aware of independent or non-mainstream artists who they bought albums from or supported in other ways.

I don't doubt that P2P has given greater exposure to more independent musicians, but I would have to call bullshit on buying habits changing. I know several music lovers that were buying hundreds of discs a year and now don't pay a dime.

Like I said, yes more artist are getting exposure because there's no consequence of buyer's remorse. Of course MySpace and streaming could take care of that...

But there just some artist that will not get paid these days, period. They can't tour enough to offset the costs and live. And songwriters or studio musicians? Forget it, unless you are writing or recording for one of the teenyboppers, or the babyboomer crowd your career is over.

I don't see that much of a difference between the time pre-P2P and now in regards to how the labels promote artists. Back then just like today they are promoting the cash cows, i.e. mainstream artists who are already well known, while the rest can only hope to get some listeners.

This is true, to an extent... Now one could argue the amount of talent then vs now, so there is no real way to discuss this truly objectively, but I do think it was much easier for a band to develop back then vs now. The 80's you were given about three albums, if you didn't make it, you were out. The 90's they at least gave you about two... Now it's one or your out.

Services like Jamendo etc. have helped independent music much more than the major labels will ever do. And those are living off, in part, the P2P networks and the internet.
Back in the 90s, before the internet was something everyone used, the makeup of popular music was not that much different.

I'll have to check out Jamendo, never heard of it...

But I'm not sure about the 90's makeup not being different than now. The 90's were an interesting decade so maybe it's not a fair comparison...

But in the states you could turn on the radio(in any decent market) hear BritPop, then grunge, then a grunge rip off, then electronica, then hip hop, and industrial music all within an hour. Now, it seems like it's either R&B/ Hip Hop, Pop, or generic rock.

 

[indra]

I thought that radio stations have always paid to play songs.

Oh well, shows you what I know!

I was under the impression that radio stations have always have to pay for playing any recording longer than 30 seconds? They would pay via a monthly fee of sorts to a 3rd party business who then credits the record labels and their artists. That's not how it works already?

I think that is true for 'everybody else', the 30 second rule. RIAA charges a fee, annual licence fee, that is distributed to artists base on some kind of survey of how often a song is played.
I know eating establishments that play music, and even business that have music on their "hold" telephone button are hit up to pay the fee,

Yes, terrestrial ("regular") radio stations (and other companies such as the ones deep noted) are (again as deep -- and Cleasai -- noted) currently charged a licensing fee which is then divvied up amongst the songwriters. Only the songwriters get the royalties -- the musicians or singers (even within the same band) get nothing.

Now the fees internet and satellite radio pay (which are higher) go to both songwriters and non-songwriting musicians/singers. (initially these fees were very steep, but I think they have been scaled back a bit or at least the very high fees' implementation has been put off while the issue is being hashed out) Of course, terrestial radio didn't bitch too much about this when it wasn't happening to them.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

Indra, I think the difference there is that the satellite stations are usually just for entertainment purposes and each station plays one particular genre of music just because they are that type of music (hair metal, hip hop,etc)while most 'terrestrial' stations play the current hits and are the ones who actively advertise the songs for artists. This is why they should not be charged. Most artists throughout the decades would have had no exposure if not for radio.

It used to be 'Video Killed the Radio Star" but these days it looks like both videos and radio are dying together. MTV and VH1 no longer play videos, and radio is turning to mush no one wants to hear.

About satellite- I stopped my subscription when I realized most stations I thought were different and unique were playing the same songs at the same time every day. They were just as canned as Clear Channel, they just used a different bunch of songs so in the beginning they seem like a new and wider variety, but they also become redundant.

Another thing that's sinking is the local morning talk show. One by one they are fading out and being replaced by national syndications, from "John Boy and Billy" to the Fl. lawyer who can't shut up.

I sure hope nothing ever stops college radio, where students can just spin whatever they want and we get the treat of listening to a variety of music.

 

[BVS]

Indra, I think the difference there is that the satellite stations are usually just for entertainment purposes and each station plays one particular genre of music just because they are that type of music (hair metal, hip hop,etc)while most 'terrestrial' stations play the current hits and are the ones who actively advertise the songs for artists.

How do you figure? Radio is not for entertainment and satellite isn't for advertising?

It used to be 'Video Killed the Radio Star" but these days it looks like both videos and radio are dying together. MTV and VH1 no longer play videos, and radio is turning to mush no one wants to hear.

Internet killed the radio art?

 

[indra]

Indra, I think the difference there is that the satellite stations are usually just for entertainment purposes and each station plays one particular genre of music just because they are that type of music (hair metal, hip hop,etc)while most 'terrestrial' stations play the current hits and are the ones who actively advertise the songs for artists. This is why they should not be charged. Most artists throughout the decades would have had no exposure if not for radio.

I think the real difference is the but terrestrial stations have a better lobby. The group with the most influence and money to spend lobbying lawmakers is the group most apt to get laws and/or regulations written in it's favour. So the newer type of stations (internet and satellite) get more onerous regulations (and I will bet many terrestrial radio companies were all for those regulations -- as long as they didn't affect them). Now, however, the record labels are trying to stem the tide of their losses, so are going after terrestrial radio. It will be interesting to see which of those industries has the better lobby.

 

[coolian2]

radio doesn't make money?

fuck me, the new zealand radio market sleeps on a pile of money.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Yes, terrestrial ("regular") radio stations (and other companies such as the ones deep noted) are (again as deep -- and Cleasai -- noted) currently charged a licensing fee which is then divvied up amongst the songwriters. Only the songwriters get the royalties -- the musicians or singers (even within the same band) get nothing.

Now the fees internet and satellite radio pay (which are higher) go to both songwriters and non-songwriting musicians/singers. (initially these fees were very steep, but I think they have been scaled back a bit or at least the very high fees' implementation has been put off while the issue is being hashed out) Of course, terrestial radio didn't bitch too much about this when it wasn't happening to them.

Yeah my understanding is what Indra has mentioned. Here in Australia it's APRA.

And don't you have community/public/college radio in the US? I only listen to a community radio station, which is run by volunteers, has listeners paying subscriptions and plays local, unsigned, totally uncommercial music, and where I can keep up with the what the "kids are down with"...

 

[coolian2]

what the hell, i'll post my understanding of how it's done in new zealand.

every station broadcasting music has to pay a licensing fee. here it's a particular percentage of the station's revenue. a computer system tracks every song that gets played by the station and every six months sends a digital file to apra, like beg just mentioned. from there every artist played gets money from the big collective pot of cash from every radio station. they all work together, so if a new zealand artist gets played in america they'll get paid, the same as an american artist will be paid for being played in new zealand.

it doesn't limit buying songs or anything.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I don't doubt that P2P has given greater exposure to more independent musicians, but I would have to call bullshit on buying habits changing. I know several music lovers that were buying hundreds of discs a year and now don't pay a dime.

Like I said, yes more artist are getting exposure because there's no consequence of buyer's remorse. Of course MySpace and streaming could take care of that...

But there just some artist that will not get paid these days, period. They can't tour enough to offset the costs and live. And songwriters or studio musicians? Forget it, unless you are writing or recording for one of the teenyboppers, or the babyboomer crowd your career is over.

Of course you are free to question the studyies' findings. And I'm certain a number of people asked lied when they said they are also buying the artists' music.
To my knowledge the buying habits are changing in that people aren't going out buying whole albums as often as they did before. Many only buy the songs they like over the internet. And sites like Jamendo usually offer the music for free (because the artists put them up themselves) and then leave it to the listener to "donate" an amount. So about the way Radiohead did with their album. Well, free-riders are among the users as well but to my knowledge the majority donates at least a little bit every now and again.

Even in the golden 90s when the labels could make their record profits by re-selling all the old stuff as cds and so on those musicians who weren't top of the charts didn't get paid that well. They only saw miniscule amounts of the money their labels were making through them. And with the rise of the internet and the changing "environment" for music making the record industry acted pretty ignorant and didn't adapt one iota. Of course, turnovers then plunged and who got to feel that first?
The made a lot of mistakes. First, they sold overpriced cds with booklets you couldn't call a booklet. Usually it was a cheap jewel case with a cover and on the backside of the cover page they just printed some other albums "out now". Then they charged €20 and more for an album. Later they introduced crappy copy protection software which made it impossible to listen to the music in the car, on the computer or even the stereo. In one extreme case, the cactus copy protection, it could even destroy your hifi speakers if you used your copy instead of the original. And only because you have copied an album doesn't mean you have gotten a hold of it illegally.
Then they wondered that customers refused to support them anymore.

This is true, to an extent... Now one could argue the amount of talent then vs now, so there is no real way to discuss this truly objectively, but I do think it was much easier for a band to develop back then vs now. The 80's you were given about three albums, if you didn't make it, you were out. The 90's they at least gave you about two... Now it's one or your out.

Yes, it's even more money and success-driven. You hardly see the major labels take any risk anymore. If the talent has changed I can't comment on, but would wonder if that were the case. So yes, it's probably harder now than it was back then. Though even back in the 90s the streets were plastered with placards of the new albums of the established bands. All the rest had to hope for some exposure through the radio before any money went into their marketing. And that in a time when the record industry made almost more money in a single year than in decades before.

I'll have to check out Jamendo, never heard of it...

But I'm not sure about the 90's makeup not being different than now. The 90's were an interesting decade so maybe it's not a fair comparison...

But in the states you could turn on the radio(in any decent market) hear BritPop, then grunge, then a grunge rip off, then electronica, then hip hop, and industrial music all within an hour. Now, it seems like it's either R&B/ Hip Hop, Pop, or generic rock.

Here the radio has taken the same path, but the development started before the internet, p2p and mp3 were something everyone used. In fact, this development made me turn off the radio when finally I was able to listen to the music I wanted to through the internet.

 

[MadelynIris]

Yes the songwriter gets a royalty usually measured in cents per play or something like that here in the US. It's not that big of a deal. Total costs per day for a typical radio station are probably less than $200.

But I think this bill is about paying "artists" royalties, and yes sponsored by a Tennessee rep? Why do you think? Lots of country artists don't write their songs!

I'm sure it's controversial in Nashville, because there is a great industry for writing. Many writers make way more than the artists (yay!).

I still get checks from ASCAP, for what I don't know why. The checks are usually between $50 and $100 per year. Songs are being played somewhere, by someone for some reason.

I worked through the Harry Fox agency to do the cover of Drowning Man. We had to pay 7 cents per CD to U2.

Kind of funny huh?

 

[hiphop]

Well, the songwriter created the song. The law of everyone using it paying a license fee makes sense. Has been like that for decades.

Radio stations paying the labels?? Lol. In the U.S., record companies have paid radio stations via indie promoters for decades. A couple of years ago an artist still told me the going rate for nationwide U.S. promo is one million $. This may have changed with Spitzer et al .

IF the station pays any money (and trust me, more often than not they are sloppy with their playlists, speaking from experience here), these small amounts go not to RIAA but to the rights organizations like ASCAP or BMI that directly represent songwriters.

We can discuss about how the money is distributed and to who.. in every country there are shady practices by the musicians who "made" it and have a place in those rights organizations.. we can also the discuss the non-flexible way of handling and administration (e.g. a composer has to register all his works with said rights organization, he can´t split it, e.g. some of his works creative commons license AND other works administered by performing rights organization)

The principle makes sense, after all, how will the songwriter survive if he just writes songs for other artists but never performs live or releases a record?

 

[Cactus Annie]

My local radio station rulez

You get to here all the classic tunes from the 00's, 90's, 80's and 70's. There's good banter, fun competitions and a wide variety of music. When you drive out of town the signal fades because you can only receive it his town.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The first radio station in the US to play U2 (that's what they always claimed) bites the dust. Carter Alan worked there, the guy who wrote Outside Is America and The Road To Pop. I think he was the one who played them.


July 14, 2009 12:33 PM

By Michael Warshaw, Globe Staff

WBCN 104.1 FM, the long-celebrated Boston radio station credited with leading the progressive rock ‘n roll radio movement from the 1960s to the modern day, will no longer rock the airwaves.

Owner CBS Radio Boston said today that the legendary station is going off the air in a complicated shuffle intended to make room for a new sports/talk format.

On August 13, 98.5 The Sports Hub will replace the music station WBMX, or Mix 98.5, which will move to WBCN’s slot on the dial. WBCN will become a web-only operation available at The Rock of Boston - 104.1 WBCN - The Rock of Boston.

The Sports Hub will air New England Patriots and Boston Bruins games, according to a release from the station. Local personalities Toucher and Rich will anchor the morning drive hours. The station will take the call letters WBZ-FM, pending FCC approval.

As for WBCN, it will “say goodbye to Boston listeners after 41 years on the air with unique programming and stories celebrating the history and heritage of the station,” according to the release.

For decades, WBCN carried a reputation as perhaps the most progressive commercial rock station in the country, featuring such well-known air personalities as Charles Laquidara, with his “The Big Mattress” morning show, Danny Schechter the News Dissector, and J. Geils Band lead singer Peter Wolf, who worked as a DJ there. Musically adventurous and politically active, the station informed popular tastes both regionally and nationally, in its glory days helping to break such artists as Elvis Costello and The Cars.