Is that hobby Internet radio station worth $500 a year out of your pocket?

[joebtsflk1]

Lots of laws are different in other countries. We don't have a Prime Minister here. Most countries have one.

Yes, that's true. Our neighbors to the north suffer through CanCon, something that could run afoul of 1st Amendment rights here. But their lawmakers apparently felt the need to provide a break for their artists to keep from being swamped by the juggernaut from the south, so they made a law. Not saying it's a good law, mind you, but it's their law. If the US decided performing artists were getting hosed by not getting royalties from broadcast radio, and if there was enough pressure for our current laws to be changed, then it would happen.

But then we know that it in the US we have a congress (they don't deserve a capital C) that does practically nothing. In many regards, that's a good thing.

Back to streaming and being caught totally by surprise by this decision, I knew that changes were afoot this year. I didn't think it would be this drastic for hobby-casters. But on an equity basis, the argument could be made that why should a hobby-caster pay .0003 when Pandora had been paying .0014. There were companies that were making a tidy profit off of hobby-casters with pre-roll ads. Yes, the hobby-caster got a cut, but it barely paid for the royalties at .0003. The people selling those pre-roll ads had fairly low overhead and a definite cost advantage per unit over Pandora. But, Pandora had a LOT more money behind them and a superior distribution model.

 

[davideduardo]

Playing devil's advocate: shouldn't broadcast radio also pay the artists? They do in most other countries..

They do pay in most developed countries, but in a large percentage of the world's nations there is no infrastructure for rights payments. For every England there is an Ecuador and an Ethiopia.

 

[b-turner]

Canadian radio is quite different. There are still laws saying a minimum percentage of music played must be by Canadian artists. Changing formats means getting permission to do so (whether a formality or an evaluation I don't know). In addition, commercial stations pay a fund to be dispersed among public broadcasters (think community radio stations, for example). There are still requirements for non-entertainment programming as in public affairs, news and such.

Even so, the Canadians don't overcrowd the radio dial to where stations struggle just to break even on a shoestring budget. It seems they want stations to be able to afford the staff and extra requirements they must fulfill. Even so, it is financially tough to do it all even in the Canadian radio environment.

I personally prefer the FCC over the CRTC as far as the rules go.

 

[CTListener]

They do. They pay the writers, who are the real creators of the music.

It's all just poetry with odd symbols until someone performs it. Then it becomes music.

 

[TheBigA]

It's all just poetry with odd symbols until someone performs it. Then it becomes music.

Have you ever heard of demos? That's the version of the song recorded by the writers that is presented to the artist. If you talk to artists, they'll tell you they get most of the ideas for the music from the songwriter demo. One of my favorites was Elvis Presley, who took the whole vocal style you hear in Don't Be Cruel from Otis Blackwell's original demo. That's not an unusual story. Not every singer is Frank Sinatra. But even Sammy Cahn, who wrote songs for Frank, will tell you that a lot of what you hear in Frank's music was in the original demo.

 

[TheBigA]

If the US decided performing artists were getting hosed by not getting royalties from broadcast radio, and if there was enough pressure for our current laws to be changed, then it would happen.

The recording industry has been going to Congress for over ten years trying to change this law. It's a very difficult situation, because if you give the artists a royalty, then the songwriters will complain they're not getting enough. That's what's happening now with the digital royalty. And then you have the broadcasting industry, who'll complain that they have a new royalty to pay without any way to pay it. That means more advertising. That's what's about to happen at Pandora and Spotify. Radio listeners already feel they're inundated with advertising. Meanwhile, you see the artists on TV every day, flying in private jets, living in huge mansions, and wearing expensive clothes. The artists who get airplay on the radio aren't hurting for money.

 

[K.M. Richards]

If you talk to artists, they'll tell you they get most of the ideas for the music from the songwriter demo.

I just flashed back to that scene in The Jazz Singer (Neil Diamond version) where that band tries to make "Love On The Rocks" into a heavy metal song. They sure didn't listen to the demo ...

 

[K.M. Richards]

Radio listeners already feel they're inundated with advertising. Meanwhile, you see the artists on TV every day, flying in private jets, living in huge mansions, and wearing expensive clothes. The artists who get airplay on the radio aren't hurting for money.

You just gave me a new way to answer anyone who complains about too many commercials. "To pay for Bono's new private jet."

 

[TheBigA]

I just flashed back to that scene in The Jazz Singer (Neil Diamond version) where that band tries to make "Love On The Rocks" into a heavy metal song. They sure didn't listen to the demo ...

Perhaps, but radio is a SONG medium. TV is an artist medium. I was looking at the streaming charts the other day and was amazed at how many of the songs in the Top 100 are covers of hits performed by contestants on The Voice. People love the songs, regardless of who sings them. Sure, the artist can add personality to the song, but the song can still be a hit by another artist. Consider "Heard It Through The Grapevine." It was #1 by both Gladys Knight and Marvin Gaye.

 

[landtuna]

Perhaps, but radio is a SONG medium. TV is an artist medium.

I don't agree entirely with that. I think radio tends to be an artist medium which skews older (depending upon genre) than TV (which usually skews younger). There is a reason you don't hear songs by Como, Sinatra, Cornell, Page, Francis and Lee on TV these days. There are a great many singers, I won't call them artists, who make a living these days covering much older songs and usually in a different genre.

I was looking at the streaming charts the other day and was amazed at how many of the songs in the Top 100 are covers of hits performed by contestants on The Voice.

One of the most horrendous things about shows like The Voice is that "amateurs" try covering professionals popular songs. Viewers who are familiar with the original generally won't appreciate the cover and, trying to emulate a popular performer's work does very little to enhance the newcomer's chance of success. There are exceptions of course, but very few.

People love the songs, regardless of who sings them. Sure, the artist can add personality to the song, but the song can still be a hit by another artist. Consider "Heard It Through The Grapevine." It was #1 by both Gladys Knight and Marvin Gaye.

I am definitely an exception to this "rule". In my lifetime I think only one cover (circa late 50's) I liked better than the original. Were I a performer of any type I don't think I would pursue emulating another whose work was already accepted as a standard by the public. Performers who cover are generally relegated to the lounge or casino environment. The proceeding does not include the tribute artists.

 

[TheBigA]

Performers who cover are generally relegated to the lounge or casino environment.

That might apply to Sinatra, since he played a lot of lounges and casinos. He also did a lot of covers. "New York New York" was originally done by Liza Minelli. "My Way" was originally done by the writer Paul Anka. Seems to me Bobby Darin also did it. Back in the first half of the 20th century, most popular stars made their living performing "standards" by Gershwin and Cole Porter. The second half of the 20th century saw the rise of the singer/songwriter. But The Byrds had a #1 covering Mr. Tambourine Man by Bob Dylan. Dylan became the modern day Gershwin, with lots of people covering his songs.

 

[frankberry]

In the 50s and 60s, it was common for white artists to record "covers" of songs which were originally recorded by black artists.
This is one of the most famous examples (from Wikipedia):

"Hound Dog" is a twelve-bar blues song by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. It was recorded by Willie Mae "Big Mama" Thornton on August 13, 1952 in Los Angeles and released by Peacock Records in March 1953. "Hound Dog" was Thornton's only hit record, spending 14 weeks in the R&B charts, including seven weeks at #1. Thornton's recording of "Hound Dog" is listed as one of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll", and was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame in February 2013.

"Hound Dog" has been recorded more than 250 times. The best-known version of "Hound Dog" is the July 1956 recording by Elvis Presley, which is ranked No. 19 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time; it is also one of the best-selling singles of all time. Presley's version, which sold about 10 million copies globally, was his best-selling song and "an emblem of the rock 'n' roll revolution". It was simultaneously No. 1 on the US pop, country, and R&B charts in 1956, and it topped the pop chart for 11 weeks — a record that stood for 36 years. Presley's 1956 RCA recording was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame in 1988, and it is listed as one of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll".

 

[landtuna]

In the 50s and 60s, it was common for white artists to record "covers" of songs which were originally recorded by black artists.
This is one of the most famous examples (from Wikipedia):

"Hound Dog" is a twelve-bar blues song by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. It was recorded by Willie Mae "Big Mama" Thornton on August 13, 1952 in Los Angeles and released by Peacock Records in March 1953. "Hound Dog" was Thornton's only hit record, spending 14 weeks in the R&B charts, including seven weeks at #1. Thornton's recording of "Hound Dog" is listed as one of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll", and was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame in February 2013.

I always thought that the Thornton version was more akin to a spoken song than one belonging to true music. In any event, if you compared her version to that of Elvis you would not have thought it was the same song.

 

[frankberry]

Here is a link to the original recording. Not the same song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrieOEPJCos

 

[TheBigA]

Here's the point: No one is going to pay money to watch Leiber & Stoller sing Hound Dog. That's why radio pays the songwriters. They created the song.

 

[landtuna]

Here is a link to the original recording. Not the same song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrieOEPJCos

I wouldn't even classify that a "song" (or perhaps more appropriately, "music").

 

[K.M. Richards]

People love the songs, regardless of who sings them. Sure, the artist can add personality to the song, but the song can still be a hit by another artist. Consider "Heard It Through The Grapevine." It was #1 by both Gladys Knight and Marvin Gaye.

I am definitely an exception to this "rule". In my lifetime I think only one cover (circa late 50's) I liked better than the original. Were I a performer of any type I don't think I would pursue emulating another whose work was already accepted as a standard by the public.

Personally, I'm glad Creedence Clearwater Revival didn't subscribe to your philosophy, because I happen to prefer their version of "Grapevine" to either the Knight or Gaye renditions.

Now, if Justin Bieber tried to do a cover of it, I'd be chasing his sorry little butt back across the border to Canada. I had the misfortune of hearing his "interpretation" of Mel Torme's "Christmas Song" and it almost made me puke. ("Chestnuts roasting on an open fiiiiiiiiirrrrRRRRRRRReeeeeee" indeed. Give me Nat "King" Cole.)

 

[landtuna]

Personally, I'm glad Creedence Clearwater Revival didn't subscribe to your philosophy, because I happen to prefer their version of "Grapevine" to either the Knight or Gaye renditions.

I am a big CCR fan but preferred the original "Grapevine". I did think CCR did a much better performance of "Proud Mary" than the Turner version (actually, hated that version).

Now, if Justin Bieber tried to do a cover of it, I'd be chasing his sorry little butt back across the border to Canada. I had the misfortune of hearing his "interpretation" of Mel Torme's "Christmas Song" and it almost made me puke. ("Chestnuts roasting on an open fiiiiiiiiirrrrRRRRRRRReeeeeee" indeed. Give me Nat "King" Cole.)

This is a perfect illustration of why I think the artist is more important than the song. I will bet most listeners, including me, would punch the pre-set if we heard Bieber try to emulate NKC.

 

[TheBigA]

I will bet most listeners, including me, would punch the pre-set if we heard Bieber try to emulate NKC.

Only if you define "most listeners" as male around your age. The guy has had a huge rebirth of his career, and his latest album has sold millions.

Of course you'd say they have no taste, but they don't care what you think, and prove it every day.

 

[Robert Bass]

Personally I prefer Bananarama's cover of Venus, with Shocking Blue's version being a close second.

R