From AllAccess.com



Testifying on behalf of THE MUSICFIRST COALITION TODAY (8/4), GRAMMY-nominated artist SHEILA E. and ROUNDER RECORDS Co-founder MARIAN LEIGHTON LEVY will tell members of the Senate Judiciary committee that it's past time to enact a fair performance right on radio.

"For all of the complex legal and legislative discussions that have taken place around this topic over the decades, the issue for musicians is really quite simple," said SHEILA E. "We believe that being paid for one's work is a basic American right. Whether your workplace is an office, a classroom, a factory or a recording studio, every American worker deserves to be compensated for his or her labor. And any business that profits from another's work should share some of that profit."

MARIAN LEIGHTON LEVY will describe to Senators the amount of money being lost overseas to the artists who sign on the Rounder label alone. "A striking example of this inequity can be found in the case of the recent ROBERT PLANT/ALISON KRAUSS record we released here in the U.S.," LEIGHTON LEVY said. "Just last year 'Please Read The Letter' won a GRAMMY for Album of the Year while receiving almost no commercial radio play. Since ROBERT PLANT is a U.K. native, he will be eligible to receive payment for his work on the recording when it is played around the world, but ALISON will not be paid because she is a U.S. native."

NAB Runs Ads In D.C. Trades

The NAB kept their position before lawmakers by placing an ad in CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY and NATIONAL JOURNAL's CONGRESS DAILY highlighting the relationship between free radio airplay and record sales.

"Radio is the #1 way listeners discover new music and new artists. This free promotion translates to billions of dollars each year in music, concert ticket and merchandise sales for labels and their performers," reads the advertisement.

The advertisement features a mosaic comprised of gold and platinum albums given to radio stations by record labels in appreciation for promoting music through free radio airplay.

NAB Gets It's Turn Before The Committee

NAB Joint Board Chair STEVE NEWBERRY, Pres./CEO of KENTUCKY-based COMMONWEALTH BROADCASTING CORPORATION testified before the U.S. Senate Committee On The Judiciary TODAY (8/4) regarding the impact of a Performance Fee on rasio.

Said NEWBERRY, "It will be no surprise to anyone in this room when I say that radio stations across the country oppose the performance fee legislation we are considering here today. I believe this legislation will upend local radio broadcasting as you have always known it." He continued, "I have been a part of the radio industry for over 30 years and I can honestly tell you that I have never seen the economic pain the radio industry is currently experiencing. And as challenging as radio's current economic landscape is, it will deteriorate even further if a performance fee were to be enacted. Already this year, publicly traded companies are reporting revenues down 24 percent, 20 percent, 24 percent and 25 percent."

"But beyond radio's economic landscape, we strongly believe that local radio stations provide compensation to record labels and artists today," stated NEWBERRY. "The artist is 'paid' with free advertising and free exposure every time a radio station plays their music. Local free radio is the unique developer, exposer, promoter, and great populizer of new and old music, to multiple new and old generations of listeners."

Congrats! You made the front page!!

I just noticed that. Congrats!

Thanx, guys. I think this is my 2nd front page story. I feel so special.

FonkAy said:

See that post on top? Just 4 posts before you? Now look how her name is spelled.

...if that labor is producing value expressed in commodities which someone else sells for profit, yes!

BartVanHemelen said:

U R right... I should (@ least) get her name right... I stand corrected (doesnt help the rest of my post much tho )

Thank U.



+

heh

Same 'ol Bart, I see

Translation: The consumer has to pay to listen to radio if this measure becomes law..... no thank you Sheila. People like Rhianna, Jay-Z, etc., should then PAY every single time a dj plays their songs on the radio. This measure will make it so that regular people would have to pay yet another tax. We listen to the free singles on the air so that we as consumers BUY the albums.

Not getting paid enough? Take it up with the record companies then. Tax them.

If this measure goes through, I will not listen to radio, and ONLY support the bootleg industry. YOU WILL NOT TAKE MORE MONEY FROM MY KIDS> FU.

It's obvious you all don't know a thing about radio. Radio stations have to charge very low advertising rates, so paying every artist they play would kill a bunch of radio stations, especially the ones who are more eclectic. Radio stations would become much more commercial, so that they could make some money, playing only the most banal artists like Lil Wayne. Guys like Prince would stop being played.

Independent radio and public radio would have to get more tax money to pay the artists. That will not happen in this climate. Cool radio stations will be axed, bad ones will thrive, but barely. Radio will be much worse than it already is.

Why do you think record companies do Payola? They know that radio promotes an artist by playing the songs. The playing of the song is the payment. People get to hear the songs, they buy the album or the single.

Sheila means well, but this will destroy alternative radio. They cannot pay artist royalties and stay afloat.

Shhhhh... Shelia it's quiet hour.
So I should get paid every time a commercial I worked on get's aired?
Radio is promotion for artist.

Sirweasel,

2freaky4church1 said:

Exactly, that is why the radio stations I listen to are saying that they will then start charging people to stay on air. No, I am not in the industry, I only go by what I read in the paper and what my stations I listen to are saying.

For me to know "nothing about radio", I know enough to understand that what people like Sheila want is bad for me the consumer of music ultimately.

I haven't listened to Radio in over 10 years because there's nothing worth listening to. After cable and pay t.v.amd converter boxes, didn't anybody see this coming?

I have worked in the radio business for 17 years and I have experienced first hand the economic hardship the idustry faces. Radio stations already pay ASCAP & BMI fees which help pay artists. Granted, pay for performance would give artists more money, but it's not like radio stations take advantage of artists. It's quite the contrary. Radio has helped launch many of the most successful artists in history including Prince and Sheila E! Where would the The Beatles be without radio? How would anyone have known about them? Yes, we do live in a new age where radio is not the only means to get new music heard, but I totally disagree with pay for performance on commercial radio stations. Radio stations do generate advertising revenue by providing entertainment by playing artists music, but radio stations playing artists music is also advertising for the artist which generates revenue for the artist when listeners go out and buy their music!

Sheila...I love ya...but...

Wrong. This will NOT kill Radio.

Radio is still a VERY popular media. Is revenue down? Of course it is. Everything is down in this economy.

This is about the theory BEHIND the business. Is it fair for a song to be played, that the artist STILL has rights and points on, without compensation?

The radio is soliciting advertisers for money, then paying some sort of licensing to SOMEBODY so they can play the music.

All this does is give artists a voice in how they are compensated for their work. Guess what: if artists choose to overprice themselves, they'll find themselves OFF the radio. Such is life.

This gives the ability for an artist to adjust their fees, or give leverage in securing alternate compensations. Perhaps to secure 1,000 plays in the Northeast, Clear Channel will invest and promote XYZ festival in which So-and-So is highlighting. Etc. Also, Labels could have a division which middle-mans this service in lieu of recoopment costs.

Gimmieshelter said:

I don't understand this logic. Obviously, these artists are saying that they are willing to go without the "Free Advertising" if they are not going to be paid. Are you saying they should have no choice in the matter?

BartVanHemelen said:

LOL

2freaky4church1 said:

-----

"Guys like Prince would stop being played. "

Guys like Prince don't get played right now.
but I know this legislation will put independent stations out of business and the artist need to go independent or try to work out better deals with the labels.

I thought US radio stations already had to pay a certain fee for every song they played. Is this not true? Is the amount and distribution of this fee in question here?

IshmaelB said:

How american is that?
You mean she can't sell her music herself?
And 'commodities'? Are dollars commodities?
[Edited 8/5/09 1:14am]

I don't listen to the radio anymore,so I'm not sure how to feel about this

I'm a bit confused. Here in the UK as far as i am aware they already pay a fee at different rates depending on the radio station. I thought the complaint on here is that P never gets played-but if its free doesnt that mean the DJ just doesnt like him.

Normally, I would say that it is rediculous for radio stations to have to pay the artists to play their songs because without radio, these artists would never be heard of in the first place (at least that's how it used to be before all the other musical outlets). An artist that has a record without radio airplay is about as popular as a local band that is only known for playing in local clubs. How rich do you think those groups are?

However, considering the fact that radio only plays bullshit artists, I hope they do have to pay every time they play their so-called music even though I don't agree with the concept. If they insist on keeping nothing but bullshit alive, they should have to pay to do it as punishment.

It doesn't matter to me either way because if radio has to pay, they just won't play the so-called shitty artists and the artists will go broke. And if radio doesn't have to pay, the so-called artists will still go broke because of low sales due to downloads. Either way it's a win win situation. I'm rooting for seeing the downfall of both today's radio and today's artists.
.
.
.
[Edited 8/5/09 2:34am]

I don't listen to mainstream radio whatsoever but I do listen to oldies stations when I'm in the car. I can see where Sheila E. would think it would benefit her if the stations had to pay to play her songs because "The Glamorous Life" does pop up every now and then on oldies stations. The artists are making their money off of sales and radio is the outlet that gets their name out there and their music heard which eventually leads to sales. That's why I normally would say it would be rediculous for radio to have to pay to play these songs because the airplay is benefitting the artists.

However, if Sheila E. was to release a funky new album, radio would not play it because she's not young and her music is not shit hop. So she could record the funkiest album in the world but it would flop because radio would not play it. I'm sure she's probably thinking about those oldies stations playing "The Glamorous Life" and occasionally "A Love Bizarre". It would benefit her a little bit to be paid by radio each time they play them because they are old songs and it seems that the only way an older artist can make money these days is from their old music but the average person doesn't rush to the record store to buy an old song. She's not making money from sales so now she wants to make her money from radio. It will backfire on her though because if they have to pay to play it, then they just won't play it. At least as it is now, somebody will hear those old songs and possibly go out and buy them occasionally, but if radio stops playing those old songs together, she will never be heard from again and will have to resort to doing more bullshit reality shows like "Gone Country" to get her name out there.

She's desperate is what it all comes down to. It's not her fault though, it's radio's for promoting nothing but shit hop. But how do you fight them when huge corporations own multiple stations and control everything? That's why I just want to see the stations and the labels go broke altogether and I'm glad to see people downloading free songs like crazy. It's not hurting the old artists because they have basically made damn near all the money they are going to make off of those old songs because they are no longer in style. But downloading is hurting the sales of these new so-called artists and that's exactly what I want to see. I want shit hop out of style one way or the other and it doesn't matter to me how it happens.
.
.
.
[Edited 8/5/09 3:09am]

I commend Sheila for taking a stand for what she believes is right, and I'm sure she knows a whole lot more about her profession than I do, but I also have been following music long enough to have the opinion that when artists become overly proprietary of their work, they might as well just buy a rifle and aim it at their feet, cuz it can kinda be the same thing.

I can see the appeal of this idea for established artists who are having their songs played ad nauseum on big Top 40 and golden oldie stations, but what about new artists who are just trying to get their work aired on radio so they can get some recognition? I'm not saying this concept is harmful overall, but I think it should be more thought out, and maybe there should be more conditions applied, so the folks who need the airtime more than the monetary compensation aren't getting screwed, or at least so artists have a choice and smaller radio stations have more opportunities.

I think there's an answer that can be mutually beneficial to everyone...it just hasn't quite been smoothed out yet.

vainandy said:

I actually just started listening to the radio on the weekends and yes I like the music from the 70s and 80s. In NYC, station 98,7kissfm plays this type of music full force on the weekends. (They can be accessed online as well)during the week, they also play music from the 70s/80s and 90s. You will hear music from the Prince and MJ era, and once in a while when they will do a Prince or MJ lunch special, during the week for an hour. They'll also play Prince music and other associated artists like Sheila E and the Time. Other than that,

I don't listen to hip-hop crap of today. It's not real music to me at all. But I have to say they play some slamming music on the weekends from back in the day (70s/80s). Earth, Wind & Fire, Chic, Kool & the Gang, etc., I'm wondering if all those artists/groups from back in the day get any royalites from this or a fee paid to the record label. It's a shame if the royalties go straight to the record label, while the artists gets nothing, if that's how it works. I'm not an expert on the business side of radio, but because they play so much of these artists from back in the day music, they are certainly deserving of royalties.

I also listen to pandora.com online. I like that you can type in any artist or group like "Shalamar" and they will play all kinds of music from that era. I wonder what type of agreement that site has with the record labels and the artists. I notice that whatever song they play, they usually will have a pic of the artist, their cd, and offer you a chance to purchase it. Which is cool, because, although it's a free station, they also advertise the artist's song that is played where you can purchase it, while it's being played.
[Edited 8/5/09 8:04am]

Anxiety said:

But it doesn't matter IF they shoot themselves in their own feet. They should at least have the OPTION to shoot themselves in their own feet.

The problem here, from what I understand, is that artists are NOT being compensated correctly for their work being aired on radio.

Take it to another medium. Let's say I am a MMA Fighter and I have a contract with UFC to fight on television, and I get a cut from the proceeds of attendance and PPV sales. Agreements are made with Charter, Cox, and Time Warner Cable to report and reimburse PPV sales. I get a check later based on this.

2 weeks later, UFC makes a side deal with Charter Cable so that Charter can license the fight as part of a "Greatest Hits" PPV package. UFC gets paid from Charter per PPV subscription, but argues that I should not get compensated as this is a separate deal. Also, they say they should be glad that I am getting that publicity as being acknowledged as a "Greatest Hits" quality fighter. They argue that because I am being endorsed for free by UFC, my own value will rise, and I will make my money in the future.

These artists are saying "Fuck the future, I want my money now." Somebody is taking your musical ability and making money off of it, and you never signed a contract to allow this to happen. Now you're being told you have no legal leverage to request compensation. It's bull.
[Edited 8/5/09 8:08am]

I agree with VainAndy.

As I've said before in previous postings, I didn't walk away from music radio, radio walked away from me. How I listen, purchase, or discover new artist/musicians in most instances has been reactionary rather personally seeking out other alternatives. Haven said that.....

When is the last time I've heard a Sheila E song on the radio in Chicago? I can't remember and supposedly Chicago has 2 radio stations who claim to play classic old school R&B/Soul/Funk music. Hell, they had all but stopped playing Michael Jackson/Jackson 5/ The Jacksons music all together, untill the man died.

I honeslty think Shelia E, Dionne Warwick, and others are fighting the wrong battle; artist/musicians need to start thinking out of the box . Established, current, independent musicians, music producers and/or songwriters should organize and fight the mononolpy record companies have over public music radio. They need to fight how music sales are gathered and counted... this is were they're being ripped off Big time. Artist/musicians also need to be about the business of gaining control/ownership of their master recording from jump. Prince spoke to this very subject on the Tavis Smiley Show a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/t...rince.html

What's killed radio? The choices made 30 plus years ago, deregulation of TV & radio.. that's really an oxymoron. Broadcasting was never deregulated. If you have any doubt of this, write to the FCC and tell them you want to start a radio or television station Chicago, Los Angeles, New York or in any major/mid-size metropolitan city. They'll write you back and tell you that there are no frequencies available. They will tell you can always buy an existing license. For $20,000,000 - $100,000,000 that makes it, at least for most of us, a non-option.

In other words, under the rubric of "deregulation," existing broadcasters --- unlike truckers and airlines --- have been given eternal squatting rights on their frequencies. A couple of years ago, when the FCC tried to open up FM frequencies for non-corporate low-power operations --- commercial and public broadcasters alike demanded that congress "protect" their frequencies. Legislation to this effect was immediately passed which restricted new FM stations to the backwoods of Montana and South Dakota and Minnesota and Alabama.

The reality is that deregulation has effected a consolidation of broadcast licensees into the hands of a few huge corporations. Twenty years ago, no one entity could have more than 5 TV, 7 AM, or 7 FM stations. There are now operators, such as Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting (Viacom), who own more than 1,000 radio stations. We thus have a bitterly restrictive federal broadcast policy that encourages oligopolies, which is anathema to the free marketplace of ideas.















_____
[Edited 8/5/09 18:23pm]