iHeart is a station owner
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The Beatles' new song "Now And Then" to be aired on all 760 iHeart stations next Thursday.
- Thread starter radio2023
- Start date
Hearing the song as we speak on SiriusXM 60s Gold
And it was the loss of the AFM and Petrillo's stronghold on recorded music usage on the radio that allowed people like Todd and Gordon to create and propagate Top 40 radio. That single change allowed many local stations to go on the air with variety formats, mostly based on recorded music. Before that, even a 250 watt Class IV station in Chattanooga, TN, had to have a live studio band for a certain number of hours a day in order to be allowed to play a similar amount of recorded music.
Of course, more stations, the decline in radio networks and post war prosperity allowed for broader use of music once it was not restricted.
Many don't realize that to get around the union issues there were a number of services that provided performance royalty free music on disks that stations could play freely back then! Well into the 50's, many songs were popular due to the song itself and not the performer. We even had a first-radio-then-TV show of the weekly hit parade where a studio team of singers performed the week's Top Ten! It was not until the MOR stars of the early to mid 50's and the rock 'n' roll tunes from about 1955 onward that the singer or group became the most important element. Even then, into the 60's we often had multiple versions of some hit songs.
Your post brings out that a lot of changes took place in the years between the end of WW II and the British Invasion... the advent of Television, changes in the musicians union's power, wide use of magnetic tape recording, the 45 RPM single and the vinyl album, stereo, FCC licensing of more than triple the number of stations, the final ability of FM to compete... heck, in 1950 there were more FM stations than all licensed stations in 1940!
In fact, at the start of 1950, there were over 2200 AM stations and 1000 FM operations (Radio Annual, 1950, https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Radio-Annual/1950/RA-1950-All.pdf page 77). That is more than triple the 1940 count.
And when I was about 12, I had subscriptions to Barron's, Time, Broadcasting and Sponsor. They had great influence on me then. But whatever they contributed to my formative years is now gone.
There are many "influencers" (not using the current internet definition of that term) from the past. I am influenced by Cervantes and Thoureau, but I don't live on a lake or tilt windmills on a daily basis.
Well, thinking it over, maybe you are my "windmill".
What they sold were publishing rights, not the song, if I am not mistaken. They sold at a point of peak value for estate planning. Both of those chaps are in the final years of their lives.
The band is famous. This is a publicity stunt.
If you test any sales demo between 18 and 54 you will not find one song that listeners "want to hear on the radio today". They may know the songs, may see them favorably, but nearly, totally all certainly don't want to hear them now.
So are you possibly. Springsteen is younger than the two leading Presidential candidates. That's not the point. Sales of CDs and Vinyl used to bring consistent revenue to songwriters. That source of income is gone. Most musicians now have to rely solely on touring...
If there was a "bad taste" emoticon, I'd put that here: ____
Not true. Composers get considerable rights payments and have since the 30's from ASCAP, then BMI and then SESAC and the new kid on the block, GMR. They get those fees from streams, airplay and even private locations like doctor offices and restaurants and stores.
Not all composers tour. Not all artists compose. Always been that way.
It's the artists who DON'T compose that need to rely on touring. That's why some of these artists are demanding songwriting credit even when they don't deserve it.
Last edited:
You mean like Elvis?
In all fairness, it wasn't Elvis who did the demanding. It was the Colonel.
Songwriting partly broke up The Beatles. George was upset that he didn't get more songs on their albums.
Why did George Harrison quit The Beatles?
For a period of time, George Harrison’s role in The Beatles was a relatively straightforward one, but soon that wouldn't be enough to keep him entertained.
Might not have been the case when they were new, but The Beatles have long been polarizing. Most of their fans either like them before Sgt. Pepper or Sgt. Pepper or later. That album was a big change, and the people who liked them as a pop band didn’t care for the psychedelics while the rock fans thought they started getting good at Sgt. Pepper. I worked for a cluster that had a classic rock station 20 years ago, and finding consensus Beatles songs was difficult. From what I understand, that task was also difficult 10 years earlier. The Rolling Stones had a much more consistent sound.
The problem with the Beatles is that the earliest music, which oldies stations played, is not popular with very many people in the 25-54 age group. Plus, people who like “Love Me Do” generally can’t stomach “I Am the Walrus” and “Admiral Halsey” and vice-versa. When testing music, every song, however, has to be a hit or near hit with the target audience. Finding Beatles songs that everyone likes has been challenging for a long time. The later songs generally test better, but the people who don’t like them tend to really hate them. That's not to say that they weren’t a big influence, even on today's artists. It just means people pick and choose which songs of theirs they like, and that makes playing them on the radio difficult.
Alfred Hitchcock is a lot more appreciated now that he’s gone. Horror movies are a niche and generally aren’t well-regarded by critics. Hitchcock was no exception. No horror movie won an Oscar during his lifetime. Hitchcock knew how to reach his target audience, but he wasn’t mass appeal. In college 30 years ago, I took a film class as part of my fine arts requirement, and Psycho was one of the movies we watched. I doubt it would've been shown if my parents had taken the same class when they were in college 25 years earlier.
You're the one who used the bad taste "Final years" comment. That's like the "Cranky Martha" medicare commercial mocking seniors.
Royalties from ASCAP and BMI are pretty miniscule. It's about 9 cents that's split between songwriters and publisher. It's not comparable to what sales of CDs and Vinyl used to bring in. Bottom line is that musicians have a harder time getting paid for their work these days...
Many errors in your post. "Uncle Albert/ Admiral Halsey" was a Paul McCartney solo tune from his Ram album. The Beatles were experimenting with their style long before "Sgt. Pepper". Albums like "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" were groundbreaking records. The Rolling Stones also tried different styles (even making an ill conceived psychedelic record which wasn't their strength).
It's laughable to say the Beatles don't "test well". What kind of morons were Radio stations using in these tests? Classic Rock wouldn't even exist as a format without bands like The Beatles, Who, Stones, and others paving the way...
Last edited:
And if they're not non-Hispanic white, you won't find all that many who see them favorably, and a considerable number who couldn't even name a Beatles song. There are many more people in the world, in all age groups, to whom the Beatles mean (or meant) nothing than there are those like tbolt.
The same can be said for Taylor Swift or Morgan Wallen...
Absolutely. When have I ever made statements about them that are even remotely like yours about the Beatles?
FYI, I grew up on, and still love, the Beatles' music. The whole British Invasion, in fact. But I don't assume that their songs are universally known and appreciated.
The point remains that people who liked earlier Beatles generally don't like that song. As David mentioned, Beatles fans in general are lukewarm on the members' music after the band split up.
Experiments often fail. In a sense, the Beatles were better with that than most artists. They did, however, turn their fan base over when they went to a more rock sound from pop. As you mention, The Rolling Stones tried styles that didn't work and went back to their more traditional sound. Those styles that didn’t work were rightly spiked by radio.
Their target audience and their listeners.
Classic rock arose from album rock. It was essentially taking the popular songs from those artists. That's not saying all those songs were hits, but classic rock was built on a smaller library than album rock. It worked (and still works) because it doesn’t play the songs from those artists that people don’t like.
I've noticed WAXQ NY is still playing Now & Then about four times a day, once per daypart. That's certainly more times than any other song in their playlist. The original press release only promised that iHeart classic rock stations would play the song every hour on the day of release. It's been almost a week. I would expect the promotion will end this week.
Any of us who are eligible for Medicare are in at least the final third of our lives; that is the absolute truth. Based on statistics, we are in the final 6th of our lives which is by no means the opening act.
As I have said on few occasions to pushy youngsters who bitch about "old farts" slowing down the line, "I guess you don't want to become old yourself".
But every play on radio and streams gets another "hit" on the rights meter.... over and over. I'm positive that I have paid more than a dollar in rights for "Festival en Guararé" while I never would have bought any of the albums of any of the artists who have recorded that song.
I use that as an example of how the changed model actually gives greater earnings to the composers of songs that are not the kind that everyone would have bought "back in the day" but which are ones that many would like to hear occasionally.
You are comparing rights paid for "ownership" of a copy of a song to fees paid for each time it is played for you.
Songwriters get ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR composer and publisher rights payments. Bands, unless they write their own stuff, get performer royalties. In both cases, each kind of rights goes to collection agencies that distribute to composers or to performers.
Both have stronger collection processes today than they did in the past, but those payments are based on performance rather than on a physical copy of the work on acetate, vinyl, or magnetic or digital media.
Which is not applicable to the current situation with audio unless we start getting lots of music created via AI technology in replication of the voices, styles and instrument playing of major traditional groups and artists. You are confusingly mixing performers and composers. Each group has a separate rights structure and even the classic "singer-songwriter" gets separate payments for the song and for the performance.
Last edited:
I liked that one and other solo McCartney hits better than a lot of The Beatles' songs. Now some of The Beatles songs I like when performed by others. "Something" by Tony Bennett, "Fool on the Hill" by Brasil 66, and "Strawberry Fields Forever" by Hollyridge Strings.
David is right that once past 65, you're in the final 20% of existence. Has nothing to do with 'taste' and more just a fact.
Really? When was the last time you wrote a check for copyright fees?
Where the money comes from is different, that's all. Now artists are being discovered on TikTok, allow folks on social media to stream their songs for free, then hit the road touring.
- Status