Music Industry Seeks Payola Inquiry 298
An Anonymous Coward writes "The big media story of the day seems to be that the RIAA, artists, and others in the industry are complaining that there are monopolies (such as Clear Channel) forming in the radio broadcast industry. The group is stating that the practice of "independent promotion" is really a new form of payola and that it is hitting the artists' bottom line directly." Another submitter writes in with another story on the subject and the industry's Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio.
You just can't win (Score:2)
Re:You just can't win (Score:2)
Internet-based radio stations are going to help, as will I think the DMX stuff out now. Now, fans, not lawyers, will get to decide completely what is the listening interest. Internet radio has gotten mixed results, and I was sad to see Fat Free Radio [fatfreeradio.net] disappear because what I listen to isn't often found on the airwaves.
Re:You just can't win (Score:2, Interesting)
think about it, have you actually LISTENED to a clear channel station? around here, they're usually the ones pumping out brittney and the rest of the rotten ilk. they're just a TRL that plays more than 50% of the song.
let RIAA and clear channel pummel each other. if RIAA makes it easier for "independent stations" to be heard, good for them.
I'm NOT a RIAA fan, but sometimes even the worst of people/groups can hit the nail on the head, even if they don't use the best methodology.
fuck clear channel and fuck the RIAA.
I hope the RIAA bankrupts clear channel and exposes themselves as frauds in the process.
sincerely,
-a musician.
Re:You just can't win (Score:2)
Re:You just can't win (Score:2)
"Good idear, Mr. Churchill. So I should delay that invasion of Europe until the war's almost over?"
"Yes Mr. President."
"And there's no chance the Russians will win and overrun Eastern Europe and set up Communist satellites for fifty years?"
"No, Franklin."
"Excellent, Winston."
Something about learning, history, mistakes, doomed, etc. I don't remember the quote =)
Re:You just can't win (Score:2)
In addition, they control a local monopoly on radio advertising in a region, so you pay more at the auto dealer and grocery store to cover their additional advertising costs.
With clearchannel, you get synchronized commercial breaks so you can't easily channel surf on your radio to avoid advertising.
Re:You just can't win (Score:2)
I am Confused (Score:2)
Re:I am Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
What RIAA really opposes is MORE payola. Not payola in general.
Re:I am Confused (Score:2)
Good luck RIAA, we know your pain...
The
Re:I am Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
The more things change... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The more things change... (Score:2)
It's Not Corruption They're Worried About (Score:3, Interesting)
It's probably worth noting that the Music Industry slime-wads aren't actually worried about the corruption of the play lists that payola causes.
From the article [yahoo.com]:
Deregulation of the radio business and rampant practices that skirt 40-year-old anti-payola laws stifle competition, drive up music promotional costs and make it harder for new artists to gain attention, the artists and record labels said in a joint statement addressed to the federal regulators and Congress.
That's right, it's all about the mighty $.
Why buy into a game you already own?
Re:It's Not Corruption They're Worried About (Score:2)
Seriously, though, these are the promotional costs that make $3 worth of production and $.50 worth of media cost $18.99 at your local Best Buy. For all the whining Slashdotters do about "Why do CDs cost so much?" they should be firmly behind any effort to eliminate the influence of independent promoters on the music industry.
Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention the 20+ minutes of ads (not including the DJ's yapping away) in every hour of music.
And from what I've heard, Clear Channel can be a rough company to work for. The corp HQ selects the playlists and the DJ doesn't get to choose very many songs to play, unless they're working after 9:30 or 10:00 pm (and who's listening then anyways?)
When I'm at work, I listen to Wolf FM [wolffm.com]. They've got some ads, but the ratio of music to ads is very high.
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:5, Interesting)
I lost my last shred of faith in commercial radio when the 80s stations showed up. I really like 80s music, and you would think that with an entire decade to choose from, I wouldn't hear "Come on Eileen" and "Too Shy" every single day! But I do.
Oh, they do give us the all-request lunch hour. As long as your request is on their "approved" list. I actually had a dj tell me that they couldn't play a tune (that he liked a lot and even had in the library) because New York wouldn't let them.
There is no local radio anymore.
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:2)
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought about mentioning college radio, but didn't because it wasn't really related to my initial gripe. Since you bring it up, however...
With the exception of smaller schools whose transmitters are very low power or cable-broadcast only, even college radio has become increasingly programmed and wooed by major label interests. On the one hand, they aren't really beholden to anyone yet, so you do sometimes get unique and alternative music. More and more, though, I've found that most college radio is simply playing the stuff that's on its way to Clear Channel because the labels swoop in and throw a bunch of swag at the students who gleefully go along because they're now talking with the "big boys." The majors use College as a test bed for new albums. It's the minor leage of commercial radio.
I highly recommend the book "Confessions of a Record Producer" by the pseudonymous Moses Avalon. He outlines what really happens when you get signed. Here's a rough paraphrase from memory:
If you want proof of concept, go to your closest major university station (UCLA, NYU, UT, whatever) with your latest album and try to get it on the playlist. It won't happen except at schools that are too small for labels to bother with, or schools that have a fierce indepent streak in their culture (e.g. Berkeley).
Yes there are college stations that are still diverse. I think San Jose State is one of those (I never knew if I was going to hear thrash metal, techno, or yodeling), but they are getting fewer and farther between, and with the increasing economic pressure on Universities, look for additional "corporate sponsorship" to bleed over from the football program.
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:2)
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I was involved in college radio at exactly the right time when so-called "alternative" was making larger inroads into the mainstream market, but I recall that during my time as a college radio DJ, approximately 75% of what was on our non-discretionary playlist ended up on commercial radio about a year later.
CMJ's purpose in life is to break new music and new artists, so it's no surprise that they're listing artists on smaller labels. What I'd be much more interested in is a breakdown of who owns/runs those labels and who they worked for previously. There are several independent promotion companies made up of previous A&R reps who work solely on promoting to the college market, and many of these have majors as clients because of back-connections.
I agree that there's a lot of good music out there on college radio, especially during the cyclical pop-retreat (you know, the wave of bubblegum we get every 4-5 years after the industry has milked the latest fad (e.g. grunge)). That's when college radio has a chance to shine because they're not just playing it safe and they have the freedom to play things that centrally programmed stations are too conservative to play.
And maybe you were fortunate enough to run one of the stations that for whatever reason didn't deal at all with the major reps when they came around throwing free cds, posters, and t-shirts around - good for you. But many college stations do, and the larger the transmitter, the more interested the majors are in renting some time on it. I'm not just pulling this out of my... er... hat - this is what I've learned from A&R reps at the majors and producers that I've worked with.
College radio has its place and its functions - one of its functions is test market for the majors.
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:2)
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:2)
dumm... da da dumm... da da dumm... da da da da da da da da da da dumm...
Well, of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
CC: "These are not the bands you are looking for"
PUB: "These are not the bands I am looking for"
CC: "You will listen to our drivel and enjoy it"
PUB: "I will listen to your drivel and enjoy it"
Re:Well, of course... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well, of course... (Score:2)
OTOH, one CC station here actually has intelligent-sounding DJs that keep their mouths shut when they have nothing to say. But it's a straight-up country/western station and doesn't have any "morning drive" or similar segments.
Re:Well, of course... (Score:2, Informative)
Major Label(ML): I've noticed our band is not in your (billboard)top ten.
Program Manager(PM): yup, people haven't requested it (because it sucks).
ML: what would it take to get the band into the top ten?
PM: (now here is where I fill in my 'wish' card) I would need to do some promotions, how about a stack of CDs T-shirts and a signed item or backstage passes.
*A bit of dickering, later*
ML: OK well send that stuff out to you and we HOPE that this'll get us into the top ten.
This conversation would then occur again to try and get their bands closer to number one - that's when the anty gets upped. You can then ask for interviews, and probably other interesting stuff - and get it. Don't think that all of this stuff is handed directly to the listeners...most are divied up by the radio station owners and the sloppy seconds are relagated to promotions.
I quiver to think of what the offerings are to larger (real) radio stations! It's sad when thinking that labels who put out some really good product *cough* Thrilljockey, [thrilljockey.com] Touch and Go [southern.com] *cough* can't compete.
So, the moral of the story is that sometimes 'payola' is not money, but 'promotional goods'.
*Now that I've divulged this sensitive information , this may be the last time you hear from me before my door gets busted down.
Re:Well, of course... (Score:2)
You ignored the bands you did like because they can't afford to compete? Even an unsigned band must have CDs they could give away. It would be even easier to get interviews, autographs, personal apperances etc. These types of things are very expensive for major artists, but cost next to nothing for smaller labels. This seems like a playing field where they could compete.
Re:Well, of course... (Score:2)
Of course they do. A friend of mine gets called every week and they play a couple dozen song clips and ask her to rate how familiar she is with the song, and how much she likes the song. These are the surveys that define ClearChannel's playlists.
The good old days of radio pre-digital ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to work for an FM station, too -- KQ102 in Canton, Missouri -- and it was pretty interesting. It was from 1988-1989 -- and seemed to be the time right before "digital" took over everything FM.
Everything we played was on 45s -- vinyl -- and each 45 was rated according to its "tempo."
There were thousands of 45s at the station and about ten different tempo numbers. A #1 song was really, really fast -- and a number 10 was really, really slow.
Someone listened to all the music and -- based on the tempo -- placed them into the appropriate tempo bin.
Now, our mission was to look down at our playlist and play songs of varying tempo. We had markings like 1-5-8, or 2-6-10 to indicate the next three songs (fast, medium, slow) and breaks for each commercial or public service announcement.
The idea was that you were supposed to take a 45 from the front of the bin, play it, and then put it in the back of the bin. Of course, it didn't work like that, since our playlist was based on tempo and not song titles -- so all the shitty stuff was in the back of the bins never to be touched, and all the good stuff was in the front.
And we only had to hit our commercials plus or minus two minutes -- and give our top of the hour station announcements within 60 seconds plus or minus -- so we had a *lot* of leeway to play what we felt like, when we felt like it. It was fantastic, actually.
We broadcast out of a tiny white house that had been converted into a radio station. Transmitter in the living room, main booth in one bedroom, production studio in the other, and the sales office in the kitchen.
And we had a *huge* listener base. I used to do a lot of Friday and Saturday night shifts -- from 8pm to 2am -- and, man, I had groupies. I couldn't fucking believe it. People would hear your voice -- on account they'd be playing you at parties and in their car -- and they'd drop by in droves to see what you looked like. It was sick and bizarre, but it was loads of fun. We'd be sitting in the booth and staring out the window into the backyard and see all these people back there, waving and trying to get your attention.
It was really a bizarre thing but amazingly exciting. The fact that we were spinning 45s, playing more or less what we wanted (within reason) made for some amazing nights of music.
Sadly, KQ102 was put out of business by the rise of digital and the fact that they were one of the last stations in the area to still use vinyl. We actually had *turntables* -- as if we were a college radio station. It was a trip.
Great fun. Huge listener base. Gave away lots of prizes and cash.
But it was pretty much stomped out by corporate radio.
Re:The good old days of radio pre-digital ... (Score:2)
Either that, or you forgot to save enough beer money to buy a DAT machine and a CD player.
The Have-A-Lots Vs. The-Have-Even-Mores (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I supposed to lose sleep knowing that they've gotta pay their indies $10K/song/station to get an add because the stations are all owned by the same conglomerate when the record labels have joined into a conglomerate and engaged in price fixing?
I don't listen to radio (except for the independent, supersuave WFMU [wfmu.org]) and I can't wait until inevitability catches up with the RIAA.
Pot, kettle, black (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, boo hoo. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
What's this sudden realization?! (Score:2)
In other news, the American Medical Association is warning that cigarettes may kill you, and NASA has released a press release stating that the sun is "very, very hot."
I mean, isn't it totally common knowledge that independent promotion is payola vaguely disguised? I can only assume ClearChannel is making noises to push a little bit harder, squeeze a little bit more, and this is the RIAA pushing back. 'Cause this has been going on forever.
Like Movie Theaters? (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll only hear certain artists on stations that are owned by the company that promotes their label or tour.
It'll kinda be like movie theaters where certain movies are only carried by Regal, or General Cinema, etc.
Remind me why big media companies are a good thing again?
why big media companies are a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
an industry with many small players suffers from the fact that none of the players can give very much and most of them don't want to give any at all, because a) they don't need any news laws or b) they figure someone else will fight the fight for the industry.
in an industry with a few large players, however, each of the players can give very large donations, and they tend to stick together to a) fix prices for mutual benefit and b) buy the legislation they need in order to self-perpetuate.
congress knows this and adjusts the industry accordingly. for instance, deregulation is just congress's way of allowing an industry to clump together, creating large generous conglomerates. it makes congress's job much easier: fewer checks to cash, and each check is larger.
-c
Something doesn't really make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The recording industry is complaining that the recording industry is paying to have certain songs played on the radio. They why don't they just stop paying?
Of course, all the labels will have to agree to do this, since if all but one stops, and this payola really works, that one label will have tons of airplay.
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Good question. For one thing, it looks an awful lot like collusion, which is illegal under U.S. anti-trust laws. For another thing, it's been tried before - about twenty years ago - when record labels actually banded together to put indie promoters out of business. It almost worked, too, but so many artists (whose careers depend on airplay and the sales the airplay generates) complained that the labels were forced to back off.
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:2)
Well, they've done fine one that point so far, so I really don't see how that could be a problem...
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:2)
Personally, I think the record labels should have just stuck with it. After all, it was only a short-term loss, but surely would have been a long-term gain as other record companies bought into the idea.
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The music industry, for the most part, does not control the radio stations. Getting your song played is an endeavour in marketing, costing money like any other marketing device does. Did you think that new songs got played on the radio because people actually liked them? No, someone does some sort of market analysis and them determines which artists get that kind of exposure. The catch is that the music publishers, like any other business, does not like to pay for this. So they try to get new artists to sign contracts that pretty much makes it so that the burden of funding the marketing effort is the artist's cost of doing business. This is essentially what Courtney Love was complaining about in that big speech she did that knocked the industry. I find it ironic that she found their practices against anything she learned in high-school economics and at the same time downplayed the importanct of extended education by claiming all P2P had was "college boy" music. I believe had she gone to college, she probably wouldn't have been backed in a corner and forced to sign a record contract that had all this marketing expense tacked onto it. No one forces the artists to sign their contracts. However, as you hear about how some of the most popular bands lived before signing (shoplifting in order to eat, squatting in abandonded buildings, etc), you understand why they sign the first paper stuck in front of them. Have a college education or alternative career as backup, then you have more leverage to say no to certain items in the contract. It also depends on your selected manager, who has a lot of power to screw the artist too. I used to work in music studios, and some of the managers are ex-roadies. Most roadies are dumb as a box of rocks. (Like the time the Fleetwoood Mac roadie couldn't figure out why the circuit breaker kept popping when he plugged 2 refrigerators into an outlet.)
The whole payola thing got quashed, now they figured out a new way to get money to play music. They will figure out a new way to do it if their current way gets outlawed. The great thing about P2P is that you get to hear a lot of music that is not played on the radio. To tell the truth, I don't listen to the radio much anymore since I don't tend to like what they choose to play. If I had my choice, there would be a station that played Oakenfold, Sasha, Van Dyk, and all the other European artists that really know how to make music but have not gotten enough exposure in the US to make them mainstream. I guess this is what "college boy" music is....but I'll tell you, I'd rather listen to this than hear the "real music" that has Courtney Love droning and screaming into the microphone. (Who would have thought SHE would consider herself an audiophile?)
(If you like Courtney Love and you are insulted by this, sorry, but get over it.)
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:2)
Most musicians aren't much smarter. If they had any brains they wouldn't be put in a position where they feel like they have to sign the infamous "standard contract". Of course, you already said that.
And strangely a lot of roadies seem to be musicians who aren't able to go anywhere on their music skills. And then there's the managers and musicians who end up as scouts. It's like one big mental midget circle jerk.
Wow, that really sounds like flamebait. Oh well, being a musician myself, I feel I have a right to say that, flamebait or not. Besides, it'll be amusing trying to get my karma back up to the cap
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:2)
Let's take Paul Oakenfold, and examine this for a minute... He's a dj... so how is he "making" music? (I know he produced a couple of tracks on the Swordfish soundtrack but they suck anyway)
My point is that Oakenfold isn't about the music any more than any pop band from the US. He's also all about the image. He appeals to people that like things that seem more "underground", like yourself, though it's still all an act. I have a question for you: Would you still like the artists you mentioned if their stuff was pushed and accepted like current pop? Would you really?
Don't get me wrong, I mean, I like a lot of stuff from the artists you mentioned. Shit. I even like BT sometimes, but it's not for the image. It's purely for the sound. In fact I like some N'Sync et al songs too. (not to be confused with liking the group in general) But I don't care whether a song is popular or underground or trendy or campy. The only thing I care about is how it sounds in my ears.
Boo Hoo for the RIAA (Score:2)
The answer is... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Pirate_Radio
Re:The answer is... (Score:2)
RIAA should be investigated for legislative payola (Score:2)
As I've said before... (Score:2)
Slashdot Groupthink summary (Score:2)
MPAA has nothing to do with music, but they're still evil
Clear Channel sucks
Radio is awful, I listen to NPR, CDs and OpenBSD music cd's only
Clear Channel Station List (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Clear Channel Station List (Score:2)
Re:Clear Channel Station List (Score:2)
They aren't all the way to their goal of "lights out" DJ'ing yet, but they are getting close.
sPh
Re:Clear Channel Station List (Score:2)
How hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
You really have to marvel at the arrogance of these people. They truly feel they can do whatever they want without consequence. Yeah I know, 50 years of history proves they have been able to so far, but even the dumbest dog will eventually attack it's master if it's beaten enough.
Hmm (Score:2)
Translation: Stop me before I payola again! (Score:2)
I mean, they're saying that only the payee and not the payer of payola is at fault. They are probably enviously eyeing Bill Gate's mansion, while theirs is only on the level of, say, Aaron Spelling.
So they'd like to cut their marketing costs (remember, this is why they say CDs cost so much and that they are a vital part of the process despite the fact that CD recording and distribution no longer requires the resources of a major corporation to undertake), and they'd like the Senator from Disney to do it for them.
Then later on they'll get bored and command him to mud-wrestle midgets for campaign contributions.
Dance, puppets! Dance!
I so don't care who wins this battle.
riaa cries... (Score:2)
Poor poor RIAA, now that there are radio corperations big enough to tell them to stuff it and dictate terms they go crying to the Govt yet again...
"Wahhh, he's bigger than me! make him smaller! because he wont let me tell him what to do anymore!!! Wahhhh!"
i hope clear channel get's fricking HUGE. and then slams the door on the RIAA's hands.
hey, clear channel... ever thing of signing artists yourselves? how about bypassing the record labels directly...
Geeze, What a lose-lose situation... (Score:2)
Oh yeah, they get extra points when they can use thier influence as a tool to condition the masses into cattle like passivity.
Which is funnier? (Score:4, Funny)
-or-
The president of Kazaa complaining that people are pirating their software by using programs like KazaaLite?
All I have to say is BWAHAHAWHAHWHAW!
so whats the problem with "pirating" (Score:2)
opening the door to XM radio? (Score:2)
I think it's easy to agree that a lot of the slashdot audience despises two things in current radio: limited playlists, tons of ads (well and yappy dj's too I guess). Both of these facts exist because the radio station has to maintain a certain level of income.
Does XM run ads? Do we know how they pick their playlists?
Seems to me a subscription based radio is the "next step". Pay a little to get less ads, get more music, get a better variety of music. I just figure paying a subscription will reduce the pressure to maximize profits just a tiny bit, leaving some wiggle room so the radio can actually be enjoyable to listen to.
Course the question is, does XM achieve this?
Re:opening the door to XM radio? (Score:2)
Yes, XM Radio does run ads [latimes.com]. That's why, if anything, I'm considering SiriusRadio [siriusradio.com] (which has no ads).
Well, since ClearChannel owns a large part of XM Radio [xmradio.com], my guess is that XM Radio picks its playlists the same way ClearChannel does: payola [salon.com].Anything they say... (Score:2)
If the RIAA lawyer are worth there money they would make a great case, again Clear Channel as well as against the RIAA. So lets see what they have to say
Was it just me (Score:2)
Who first read the headline as...
Music Industry Seeks Payola.
Z.
"Nothing new there" I thought.
Salon summaries on Payola (Score:4, Informative)
Man, that reminds me -- I really ought to subscribe to Salon [salon.com] :-/.
PS Since ClearChannel has a large stake in XM Radio [xmradio.com], I completely expect XM Radio to support payola >:-[. But, does anyone know if SiriusRadio [siriusradio.com] also support payola? I'm thinking of subscribing, but I wouldn't want to do so if they're corrupt as well.
Re:Salon summaries on Payola (Score:2)
I'm thinking of subscribing, but I wouldn't want to do so if they're corrupt as well.
You actually think that any of them aren't corrupt? I thought somebody with a three-digit uid would have been much more cynical by now...
Another distribution channel (Score:4, Funny)
Clear Channel's motto is "How many ways has Clear Channel reached you today". And you thought Microsoft was obnoxious. Their corporate creed is "We believe the ultimate measure of our success is to provide a superior value to our stockholders.".
Clear Channel even owns Rush Limbaugh. [clearchannel.com] He was a big help in getting Congress to remove all limitations on one company owning all the radio stations.
RIAA true motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the story here is that Clear Channel is also in the "Concert Promotion" business. I put the term in quotes because it's more like legalized racketeering. Their standard procedure, regardless of what specific business they're working in, is to make as much for them regardless of the damage it does to their customers, business partners, and the public. Their theory is, what's good for us is good for us, fuck all others. (I can already see the knee-jerk "the market will decide" Rush Limbaugh clones racing for the reply button about how this is a good thing...Read-on first, please.)
So CC will do things like leverage all their businesses... So, if you want to play a concert at the desirable venues (ie. Not a shitty dive bar) in XXX City, you'll have to have a "music promotion" contract with WXYZ to get your tunes played, a concert prmotion contract with CC Entertainment which also includes a budget for ads on WXYZ, agree to do these other CC shows in other cities, AND do it all for what CC is offering.
In other words, CC is victimizing the RIAA membership the same way the RIAA members victimize their customers. (Ie. Accept our lowball offer to do a conecert, or get no airplay the month you play at a competing venue vs. Pay $19 for a CD we paid $2 to create.)
What we're getting ready for is a battle royale of influence and political contributions, as the two big behemoths who both think they own Congress and have a constitutional right to their obsolete business models go toe to toe, trying to see who can spend the most to get their way.
If I didn't know that this battle will only result in the consumer being screwed even further, I'd say get some popcorn and enjoy the show. As it is, I'd say go pirate some music on Kazaa and start your own pirate radio station.
Or just jam CC properties, if you don't feel like you'd make a good air personality... Tuning your 50 watt transmitter to +-
Re:RIAA true motivation (Score:2)
This is Good News (Score:4, Insightful)
It is possible to dislike the RIAA and love this at the same time. It's like a machiavellian wet dream. Couldn't have achieved better if we'd planned it.
Something that's just occurred to me (Score:4, Insightful)
How many US citizens does the RIAA represent? No, I don't mean how many artist or backroom techies or even corporate weasels in suits, because it's not actually representing them. The RIAA (rather the labels that comprise it) are businesses. As such, they represent their owners, not their employees, and not third parties relying on them to market their talents or products. Answering only to shareholders is a fiduciary duty for a publically traded company. If happy employees are the key to financial success, great, but if sacking 95% of them becomes a smarter move, they'll do that without batting an eye. The RIAA represents only the shareholders (or private owners) of the companies that comprise it.
So, does anyone actually know how many US citizens are shareholders in the music businesses that comprise the RIAA? Do these US citizens know? Do they know or care that their ownership legitimizes RIAA demands on Capital Hill?
I ask this because I keep hearing about how much money the RIAA represents, and there seems to be some sort of connection between this and the political influence that they have. Now, in a democracy, this can't be true, because then your vote would count more depending on your income, right? And that's not how a democracy works, is it?
So, let's hear it. Does anyone know how many US citizens the RIAA actually represents (that's US shareholders, not employees)? I'd really like to hear someone in government asking this, because it might (not likely, but perhaps) make Jane Investor start asking exactly where her financial representatives have been gambli^H^H^H^H^H^H investing her money on the stock market, and who she's legitimizing with her investment.
WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS TO HEAR? (Score:2)
What the public wants to hear? (Score:2)
That's bass-akwards. By definition, you can't run a poll asking what people want to hear. What the public wants to hear is something different.
They hear something and they like then at that moment or they don't. The same thing at another time might get a different result.
These media corporations have the depth of a puddle of dog urine and the soul of adding machines.
What THEY want is to use yesterday's content as filler between the ads. I'm sure they'd be happier to do away with the content altogether (All those freaky artists. What do they know? And that noise?) and run informercials 24/7. "Sigue, Sigue Sputnik" writ small and quiet.
This is true.. think about the censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
And Clear Channel is the company that imposed a ban on about a 1000 songs after September. It hurts artists when their music isn't played anymore.
pot to kettle, "You are black" (Score:3, Insightful)
thinking out loud (Score:2, Interesting)
So now I'm wondering... would it be feasible to setup a slashdot-style online music forum for independent artists to submit music tracks to, such that members of forum could categorize, comment on, rate/rank those submissions to get streamed online? Wouldn't need much of a DJ (per se) as much as a few people to keep the forum running. Heck, if it works, you could probably let members design their on CD for burning for, say, $5 to get sent to them, the proceeds of which go to the forum upkeep as well as the artists themselves. Granted it would take a little while to work up a good user base, but would something like this work? Pros and/or cons?
They offer a service, shouldn't they get paid? (Score:2, Interesting)
I will say that eventually this behavior will lead to people to stop listening to a station, as their content will inevitably turn into crap. I personal don't listen to radio for music for that reason. It's all preprocessed pop crap. Their own behavior will drive them out of business, as no one will want to advertise on a station that plays crap and has no listeners. We don't need any legislation to fix this!
Re:They offer a service, shouldn't they get paid? (Score:2)
What a Week! (Score:2, Funny)
By whom are artists hurt ? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Artists, in particular, are hurt because under most recording contracts, promotional costs come out of their royalties", said Michael Bracy of the Future of Music Coalition.
Why? I thought it was the record company's job to promote music. Shouldn't that come out of their percentage? If it's not worth promoting enough to make a profit, they probably shouldn't have signed a contract with the artist.
What happens when the record label decides to do a couple $100,000 promotional parties^H^H^H^H^H campaigns on relatively unpopulated tropical islands? "Er, sorry, but your promotional expenses exceed your royalties. You owe us money."
-ez
Wha? RIAA labels are the #1 of indie promotors. (Score:2)
99% of the people who can afford to play that game are big labels. Universal, EMI, Virgin, La Face, at least as big as Koch.
Clear Channel must really have their game together if the RIAA is willing to blow their own tool. I mean, what do they think, radio stations are going to *buy* CDs? The campus stations I work with don't have the money to keep the lights on, without free stuff they'd dry up.
a funny definition of "want" (Score:2)
My favourite quote from the article:
Man, this woman is on some bad crack.Paul
Some more info. (Score:2)
Why Clear Channel exists (Score:2)
That is why there is Clear Channel. They have a significant economy of scale in operating multiple multicast (i.e. FM broadcast) operations in multiple cities.
Now if we really had that ubiquitous wireless networking, perhaps small stations playing more "interesting" music could integrate listeners from multiple metropolitan areas (around the world) into a large enough audience to be useful. But in any particular city on its own, they would be unable to break even because of the small size of their audience.
Anyway, I'm not too bothered about the monopolization of the FM broadcast band, because there is always XM, which does provide "interesting" music because they have a nation-wide signal, and a different business model.
RIAA Looking out for the Artist?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, well if the record companies so concerned about the artist then perhaps the record companies should foot the bill of promoting the product themselves.
This is so transparent. The RIAA is tired of paying the payola system that they themselves helped set up. There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about this complaint that actually helps the artist. It's just another way for the record companies to cut more of their cost and rack in even more of their ill gotten cash while doing nothing to help the people who actually write and perform the music.
RIAA has a point, but (Score:2)
That said, politics does make strange issues. For this particular one, the RIAA happens to be right. No sense in refusing help from a powerful ally; just so long as you remember this is like WWII, in the RIAA is like Stalin. The enemy of our enemy is only our friend in that particular case, and only so long as our enemy is a threat.
In fighting against Clear Channel, the RIAA may be a useful ally. However, they will not be an ally in building a new world order afterwards. They will simply want to replace Clear Channel with an organization they control.
What is really needed is what Lawrence Lessig proposed -- free airwaves. This is now possible due to current technologies. Free does not necessarily mean unregulated, as Lessig says. The basic idea behind this is that people wanting to use the airwaves are dynamically assigned a frequency upon request. Each person would have some identifier which would help radio-goers find him, no matter what frequency he was on.
This is very much possible with upcoming technology. We should start moving towards this ideal of free airwaves -- the airwaves need to be revolutionized to be like then net, where everyone has an opportunity to put something on them. Perhaps we can start out by making "half" of the radio-frequencies "free" in such a manner.
Re:RIAA cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA cares? (Score:2)
Re:RIAA cares? (Score:2)
this type of a system takes the control of creating superstars out of the hands of the RIAA - hell, if some company/band/whatever has enough money to go bribe ClearChannel into plaing non-riaa members...
Only way for musicians to make money (Score:2)
Re:Only way for musicians to make money (Score:2)
Re:Only way for musicians to make money (Score:2)
Re:Concert ticket prices have really increased (Score:2)
Re:Concert ticket prices have really increased (Score:2)
Re:to all those bands bitching about your bottom l (Score:2)
That's naive, and you're extrapolating a couple of exceptions to the rule (i.e. Phish) into the general case. In any little town, you'll find half a dozen really good bands that may be better than what you hear on the radio, and there are fifty thousand such towns. But it is really, really hard to turn that into a full-time living. You play some bars for a pittance, you sell a couple of CDs per show, and that's hardly enough money to buy equipment, go on tour, and record your next album. It isn't just a matter of being good. It's a matter of getting some backing and marketing help so you can get a wider audience. I know that's not how it works in your idealistic world, but that's how things work in this world.
Re:NOFX?? (Score:2)
Connecticut + Clear Channel =ultra pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)
Minnesota radio stations (Score:2)
I think I know just about every song on Mix104's('80s radio station) playlist, which all seems to fit on a 6-CD changer. It's been 15 minutes, can we hear "Heard it from a friend...." from REO Speedwagon AGAIN?
The saddest part was that the most diverse station, Rev105 which played just about anything(including the Golden Palominos, inspiring me to buy the CD) is nothing but a faded memory. It's now an alternative station, and about a year ago it was a disco/funk station with a super-limited playlist that's dwarfed by my winamp playlist.
Okay, I'm just venting about how bad twin cities radio is, but someone has to mention the Rev.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pigs at the trough (Score:2)
And what are they doing with my other $14.00 anyway?
Sending it to their dealers to support their crack habits.