[[Log-in to view link]]
need to be strung up by their ankles in the public square and then get tar and feathered like the obnoxious greedy turkeys they are!!!
this is getting old and all of america should boycott all new label music and only buy used CD's and independant artist CD's
hit them in their pocket and watch them shrivel up and go away when no one buys their sh*t er music anymore.
they are going to squeeze the golden goose to death then they won't have any revenue stream.
I remember when singers and musicians would BEG us to play their songs on the air. They recognized the power of air-play and were disappointed when it didn't happen.
This is sort of 'payola' in reverse.
This is what I've tried to preach to the public since 2003 and the static I got was "all you wanna do is buck authority.". 13 yrs later America finally gets their heads out of between their legs. Funny thing is had they listened 13 years ago we would have won this war already. We need to make a firm stand and this is why we have The New Radio Revolution Group. Join now and fight to the DEATH. See my signature.
A little over dramatic, don't you think?
This is a war that isn't going to be won, because the musicians, through the licensing bodies, have all the power. If there's no music, there will be no over-the-air radio stations, or streaming.
It did used to be that radio stations promoted the music. Now, there are all sorts of other ways to promote that same music. Technology has changed. Listening habits have changed. Radio isn't absolutely necessary any more.
I suspect that small (including Part 15) to medium sized radio stations are going to have to change as well. Create more customized programming, with less licensing fees payable to the big boys. Or none at all, with all original programming and/or public domain material (more difficult to find in the U.S. than other countries, but still possible).
All the complaining in the world isn't going to change anything. Nor is, unfortunately, the New Radio Revolution.
I think that the forward looking individuals are the ones who see the writing on the wall, and who are moving to adapt with what is happening.
And to me, that makes more sense for Part 15 stations. They should be different. The public doesn't need more Top 40 hit stations, or Classic Hits, or whatever.
There's always Indie music...
Independent music is good however to be a true album rated rock station you cannot deny the Deep tracks. For doing so will
cut you off from being a true aor station. Instead the new radio revolution has some tricks up Our Sleeve in our psychological arsenal of weaponry. We will win the fight and it won't stop until we do. We have big backers.
Don't you realize that there is no fight? You don't own the rights to the music - the creators and performers do. They can do whatever they want with it, including overcharging (in my opinion - I don't disagree with that) for the right to broadcast or stream it. Or withold those rights altogether.
I don't care who your backers are (why not enlighten us)? You don't have the right to take what is not yours.
You do have the right to create your own original music or programming, or use material that you are given the rights to use (such as independents), or use public domain stuff. Other than that, you have to suck it up and pay.
Okay a few things here I need to address.
I myself am close friends with the staff at streamlicensing.
Plus being that I originally started the initiative which later merged into the new radio Revolution gets our opinions noted. Don't you think that we might have a few tricks up our sleeve?
First off I have been hammering to some of the folks at streamlicensing and I have been talking to the folks at Radio diversity. Org. We're trying to fight to stop the tyranny of the RIAA while still respecting artists.
The RIAA nor its subsidiaries organizations with different names does do artist any good contrary to what the public May believe. They have been busily ripping off artists and in return ripping off the very fans who support the artist. And if that's not good enough they bite the hand that feeds them which is Radio which does a lot of their free promoting leg work for them. And let's not forget the major SW cast scandal not only did the small internet radio stations get really ripped a new one but so did the artists. I ask you where did that money go? Seems no one really knows and no one has ever brought it up again.
So it is not about a few members at The New Radio Revolution trying to Buck Authority it's about waking up the general public and also waking up those who are in charge to the fact that organisations like this don't do artist nor the artist fans any good. Charging radio stations to play music is not the answer this I can assure you.
Can Couples Make Music Together Without A Licese?
Sure, it just depends on how loud the music get's ....bada bum tiss!
Thelegacy, you personally don't want to pay royalties on your station(s) for playing music. I get that.
But the fact that radio stations are being charged licensing fees to play music shows that the licensing agencies, and the musicians, don't really believe that radio promotes their music - they're a business user, much like any other. There is merit to that argument. Most radio stations wouldn't exist today without that music.
I can also understand radio stations arguing that they promote the music, and increase musician revenue. At face value it makes some sense.
The only way that argument is going to be won is for the radio stations to stop playing copyrighted music, and to see if indeed licensing revenue is affected. But that's not gong to happen.
It's my opinion that viewing radio stations as promoters is in the past. Back then, there really was no other avenue for promotion other than word of mouth. Now, a single video posted to Youtube has far more reach than all the radio stations in the U.S. put together. Not only for established artists, but potentially for emerging ones as well. Never mind Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites.
Radio can still be a profitable business, even with ever-increasing licensing fees, but it may have to, in the future, be a little more creative than just mindlessly playing popular music.
What needs to happen is this YouTube and all United States video and audio streaming services block all United States musicians from posting on their sites without paying $100,000 to do so. Then see what happens. I guarantee you Sound Exchange would have a different tune. The key is to only allow UK Australia and artists outside the United States.
I really wasn't going to get into another music discussion, but here I am.
First off, broadcast remains NUMBER ONE for discovering new music. Several studies over this past year or so have shown that. Number one. Among all age groups.
Second, radio has paid for music rights for decades, while at the same time promoters are calling begging to get their clients songs on the air because they know getting on the air is important. Promoters continue to call independently owned stations that play current music, to get their artists stuff on the air.
Youtube is not about to block US artists. They pay for rights to have that music on there just like everyone else, and their revenue stream comes from advertising, and they can sell that advertising because they can deliver an audience to those advertisers and much of that audience is from people looking at music, including music that's old, new, and independent. Youtube is not about to say "to hell with a huge percentage of our viewers and revenue stream, so we can teach big music a lesson".
Did you want the CMY awards last night? Many artists thanks "country radio" for making them successful. Blake Shelton sang an entire song (backed by the Oak Ridge Boys) about country radio, while graphics of giant radio dials floated past him. Not ONE artist said "i wanna thank Spotify, or Pandora, or Youtube for making me a star and getting my music out there." But they thanked RADIO.
My dream scenario would be for radio to tell the music industry "fine, we'll pay your fees" and then say "by the way, we bill $125 a minute for a radio spot. You want that 4 minute song on the air that will be $500 a spin" Which is NOT payola as long as you identify on the air that the play of the song is sponsored and paid for (like a commercial). But that won't happen.
Radio COULD be successful without big music. After all, they were in the beginning. Artists ued to be independent until BMI, ASCAP, RIAA, etc came along. I have some fascinating books telling the story how radio went through hell once musicians figured out people would stop coming to their live shows when they could buy records instead, and how they'd stop buying records when they could hear them on the radio free. How the musicians unions got things fixed to members of the unions had to be in the studios to PLAY the records, so the union members still got paid. The story is quite fascinating.
When it comes to exposure to new music, Radio is still the number one. Number two is word of mouth from family and friends. Then all the rest of the digital sources fall in place behind that. A new study out last week showed AM/FM radio with a much larger audience than any of the streaming services.
Yes, radio makes money off playing the music. The music industry makes money off the exposure on radio. It's the same exchange it's always been.
TIB
TIB--That's the absolute best comment on this whole issue. You explained it very well, coherently and logically.
Your observation: "When it comes to exposure to new music....... Number two is word of mouth from family and friends." If the artists catch on to this, (using their logic) the next thing you know, they will want to get paid if we tell a friend about their song.
I remember vaguely many years ago ('60s), we had to read some kind of disclaimer every hour about the source of the music. I can't remember the details.
I'm not sure where the survey mentioned came from, but I bet it came from radio interests (or was influenced by them). And while the average person might listen to radio about half an hour per day (I think that's the number), that same average person is going to look at social networking sites a lot more than that.
I wasn't talking about Pandora or other streaming services as a promotion tool. I was talking about Youtube, and the aforementioned social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter. A single radio station playing a new record hits a certain, fixed, limited audience. But a music video put up onto Youtube literally has the world as a potential audience. That's why it's used by both established bands and upcoming artists. Just looking at the latest music videos released to Youtube, it includes singles by Justin Bieber, Beck, Selena Gomez, Celine Dione and the list goes on and on. Many artists have released stuff to Youtube before releasing it to CD (and radio). If a video on Youtube goes viral, it gets millions of looks (and listens). If something trends on Twitter, you can again count on millions of impressions.
Radio will always be around. And yes, it will continue to be used for music promotion. But it's nowhere near as important as it once was. To put it bluntly, musicians literally don't need radio anymore the way they did in the past. It helps, but it's not absolutely necessary. Careers have been launched from Youtube videos alone.
I also don't think it's entirely accurate to compare the licensing model applied to radio to Youtube - I just don't think it works that way with Youtube's Partner Program (although I'm admittedly not an expert there).