 |
|
|
News From Audio Graphics:
|
Radio Industry Vs. SoundExchange - The Gloves Are Off |
A multitude of issues need to be discussed relative to the heated battle between SoundExchange and the radio industry (terrestrial, satellite, and internet). In no particular order they include:
How much a song is worth when it is first released;
What the differential in worth is between a well-known and unknown artist's music;
At what point an "artist" should feel compensated enough.
Oh, I could go on. There is plenty of noise being made about one central theme, and not enough questions are being asked.
The central theme is that artists should be paid for any music they create that's used on the radio.
The questions needing to be asked - in addition to those above - revolve around what justifies the record companies, after decades of buying their way onto US airwaves using payola tactics, to demand that this exchange of money now be reversed. Where is the evidence that this new stream of income to recording artists is anything more than a method of replacing dollars lost by the record industry's ineptitude to change with the times? And, why is this argument not between the artists and record labels? Maybe the BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC payment systems need to be rethought.
Doesn't it sound disingenuous for SoundExchange to accuse SaveNetRadio of being backed by conglomerates when SX backs "musicFIRST," a group formed by SoundExchange, which is itself backed by the big four record companies? Why is it that the word "SoundExchange" does not appear anywhere on the "musicFirst" web site? Why is a disclosure of this relationship not required, seeing that it appears SX is using funds that were earmarked either for administrative purposes or for payment to artists? I read the CRB ruling and don't recall any provision that allows SoundExchange to use this "performance" money to fund lobbying efforts.
The radio industry has done damage to itself over the past decade. The one thing it has not done is lessen the impact it has on selling music. Other media may have saturated radio's ability to be a sales tool but, with only a couple of exceptions, unless a song is heard on radio it will not become a hit.
It's ironic that musicFirst's slogan is "fairness in radio starting today." While it means broadcasters should start paying the same inflated Copyright Royalty Board rates recently slammed on internet radio, what it should mean is that internet radio, like its broadcast cousin, should not have to pay artists who have already received payment via their session fees.
Session fees, until now, have covered any work produced by artists as work for hire. Today, though, musicians want a guaranteed, extended payday by gouging the one industry that can help them succeed. That's bad business that the music industry failed at before; selling 11 bad songs on an album of 12 songs didn't rest well with consumers. It was perceived as a gouge.
As a group, musicians need to go back and reassess the value of what they create, as it stands when played in that garage, bedroom, or bar. Compare that with the money brought in when/if that song gets on the radio.
If artists believe that a radio station's success is built only on the music it plays, they better take another look.
Forcing this issue is going to create a sea change in the way music will make it on the airwaves in the future. You, the artist, will have to pay for a slot.
SoundExchange will end up putting the music business out of business. And when it becomes known that musicFirst is a puppet of SoundExchange and the record labels, instead of being a "partnership of artists and organization in the music community," this facade will unravel and result in equal treatment for all radio... i.e., it will help remove the high performance tax already facing radio on the internet.
The gloves are off, and this fight won't end until one of the combatants is knocked out.
|
|
Comments may be published.
|
|
|
|
