A Second Price Increase from SiriusXM?

[Starbucks]

So the labels are the only companies that operate with budget constraints? Come on! Budget constraints didn't stop some labels from buying certain PDs plasma TVs and computers, did it? But how about investing in product? Can't spend money because of budget constraints.
>>>>You say they weren't investing in radio....how about legal payola in the mid 90's....MCA and a few others would buy 15-30 minutes of an hour with their product to play on the air. i forgot to mention that before.

Journey. The Eagles. The Rolling Stones. Skynyrd. The list goes on.

>>>>What did they milk?...more specific.

And I think that happens every day. Taylor Swift. Carrie Underwood. Zac Brown Band. Three artists who know how to make quality music, understand how to build fan bases, and know how to work WITH radio.

>>>>>Taylor, Carrie and who????? as far as my opinion Carrie and Taylor is mediocre at best. it 's not exactly something that you first hear on the radio and say WOW! No doubt about it...you just gave it away, you work for Clear channel radio. C'mon, LOL.

 

[TheBigA]

>>>>You say they weren't investing in radio....how about legal payola in the mid 90's....MCA and a few others would buy 15-30 minutes of an hour with their product to play on the air. i forgot to mention that before.

Investing in artist development isn't the same thing as chart minipulation. I don't think any of the artists who got paid airplay are still getting airplay today. Their careers are over. Had the labels instead invested in career building, better songs, building a fan base, etc, they'd still be working today.

>>>>What did they milk?...more specific.

OK...change the word "milk," if it offends you. These are artists who aren't really in fan development any more. Just aiming at their established base. You know who they are.

>>>>>Taylor, Carrie and who????? as far as my opinion Carrie and Taylor is mediocre at best. it 's not exactly something that you first hear on the radio and say WOW! No doubt about it...you just gave it away, you work for Clear channel radio. C'mon, LOL.

Nope...never worked for CC. Ever. Carrie and Taylor are the top selling artists in music. And they make records that, even at a time when consumers prefer to steal, will pay cash money for. That means value, which is something more artists don't do. Zac Brown Band is a country band the is turning heads because of their incredible musicianship. His debut CD has sold well over a half million in 6 months. You need to get out more.

 

[Starbucks]

Investing in artist development isn't the same thing as chart minipulation. I don't think any of the artists who got paid airplay are still getting airplay today. Their careers are over. Had the labels instead invested in career building, better songs, building a fan base, etc, they'd still be working today.

>>>There was some bad stuff being pushed by those labels, wondering what was it doing on the radio. no they wouldn't.

These are artists who aren't really in fan development any more. Just aiming at their established base. You know who they are.
>>>>Your telling me they just put out an album for the hell of it? Not to receive the airplay it deserves.

Carrie and Taylor are the top selling artists in music. And they make records that, even at a time when consumers prefer to steal, will pay cash money for. That means value, which is something more artists don't do. Zac Brown Band is a country band the is turning heads because of their incredible musicianship. His debut CD has sold well over a half million in 6 months. You need to get out more.

>>>>Ever since the day when Vision of Love by Mariah was number 1 on the chart....it showed how much the quality of a hit record went down. mediocre at the top, it's like a ball club barely playing over .500 ball, still leading in first place in a weak division. Bring it back to 1965, or 1985, they probably would not have the chart success that they have now. not that many catchy hook songs recorded today, and they tire out fast. especially when you have to hear them as long as 49 weeks on an extreme playlist. Glad I'm not in it today. As far as Zac Brown...is he getting airplay?, Charting on the CW charts? And what are doing home tonight?

 

[johnbasalla]

Good music is in the ear of the beholder. So, some stuff I may think is mediocre or worse may be 'hot' to others. Just a few days ago I was in an independent store that sells CD's. They told me the full CD's that are selling well are by The Dave Matthews Band, Eminem, and Green Day. I think the current hits, "Funny The Way It Is" by The Dave Matthews Band and "Know Your Enemy" by Green Day are good, catchy tunes.

 

[TheBigA]

>>>There was some bad stuff being pushed by those labels, wondering what was it doing on the radio. no they wouldn't.

Radio stations are open to all advertisers who have products to sell, including record labels. It's likely that, if the royalty is enacted, it will be the only way a label will be able to get music played. Buy air time and air an info-mercial.

>>>>Your telling me they just put out an album for the hell of it? Not to receive the airplay it deserves.

Who decides that it deserves airplay? Quite often these records are just going through the motions, not breaking new ground.

But the fact is that this has been an issue since the rise of format radio in the 70s. Sinatra kept releasing records into the 80s. He did a duets project with Quincy Jones where he sang with Bono of U-2. Where do you play a record like that? The Sinatra stations won't play it because it features a rock singer, and the rock stations won't play it because it features Sinatra. Then Saturday Night Live lampooned it.

But yes, the Rolling Stones keep releasing records, and tour around them. Radio doesn't play them because the records are pretty awful. Grandparents prancing around like teenagers. If you're going to play Stones, play the classics, when they did it for the music, not the money.

As far as Zac Brown...is he getting airplay?, Charting on the CW charts? And what are doing home tonight?

His debut single went to #1. The follow-up should be #1 next week. Huge buzz about him, all driven by radio airplay. But if you don't listen, you don't know.

 

[Walking On]

The established artists are further building and developing their fan base, but they are doing it on tour. Go to their concerts, there are as many (if not more) younger folks there than us "mature" ones. It's a good thing that they are still touring too, 'cause neither radio nor labels are helping most of them out. And too bad (asinine, even), because the kids are starving for quality music! As far as milking us, well "milk" away, I WANT them to keep releasing new music!

 

[Starbucks]

Radio stations are open to all advertisers who have products to sell, including record labels. It's likely that, if the royalty is enacted, it will be the only way a label will be able to get music played. Buy air time and air an info-mercial.

>>>>but it's working the other way around....labels provided free stuff, and legal pay for a block of their music, but now they are making radio pay. it seems like you can't have it both ways.

Who decides that it deserves airplay? Quite often these records are just going through the motions, not breaking new ground.
>>>They can't break ground if radio or smaller markets won't plug them to see if the audience responds.

But the fact is that this has been an issue since the rise of format radio in the 70s. Sinatra kept releasing records into the 80s. He did a duets project with Quincy Jones where he sang with Bono of U-2. Where do you play a record like that? The Sinatra stations won't play it because it features a rock singer, and the rock stations won't play it because it features Sinatra.

>>>>The sound of Sinatra was washed up by the early 70's even though he added a bit of a beat to his music comeback in the mid to late 60's. Those duets are novelties for die hard fans to see their favorite all time artist stay active. it's like Rod Stewart doing standards. it was never meant to chart a single into CHR. But suprising enough...New York got to the top 40 briefly, and yes in 1980 , no matter who played or added it , it just didn't blend in with the Cars, Tom Petty, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson and the remaining Disco sound rotation no matter how popular the tune was. It belonged in ceremonies like weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc.

But yes, the Rolling Stones keep releasing records, and tour around them. Radio doesn't play them because the records are pretty awful. Grandparents prancing around like teenagers. If you're going to play Stones, play the classics, when they did it for the music, not the money.

>>>>I don't know how you defined the stones 90's material awful. They had a release in 94 that received airplay, it wasn't bad, but it didin't chart or charted poorly compared to their others. Then they released a follow up ballad, which was not good at all. They came out in the late 90's with something that was a KD Lange ripoff, and I believed it was a bad album. But nobody really got a chance to hear or have it tested as far as airplay, and then the "Big Bang". Now that one was ignored, and how can the audience determine if that has a potential hit single or it's good album if it was completely ignored. Stations would use to scramble when a no brainer act would be played or tested on the air first, like McCartney and The Eagles, and even though it get's publicized, there's immediately no airplay. and this processes started in the early portion of the 90's.
The point is , let the listening buying audience decide when they are washed up, not consultants.

 

[TheBigA]

>>>>but it's working the other way around....labels provided free stuff, and legal pay for a block of their music, but now they are making radio pay. it seems like you can't have it both ways.

The labels want control. They want to be able to control what stations air and how they air it. By putting a royalty on it, they decide what gets played. They will discount or remove royalty from songs they want played. The bad news is that anytime money is used as an incentive for airplay, without proper identification, it's payola. That's why this royalty will never get passed.

>>>They can't break ground if radio or smaller markets won't plug them to see if the audience responds.

You don't need to do heroin to know that it's bad for you. There are ways to assess audience response to music without actually putting it on the air.

The point is , let the listening buying audience decide when they are washed up, not consultants.

Consultants don't make stuff up. Their job is to study the listening and buying audience to get their reaction to music. Radio has their research, and record labels have their research. Everyone is out there asking people what they like, and quite often, both sides end up with the same numbers. The public DOES get a chance to vote on music that gets played on the radio, because programmers and consultants use multiple ways of making music decision. It's not one guy with a "golden gut" any more. There are lots of discussions that take place every day between promotion people (those who are still around) and radio programmers. And lots of radio stations have "pick it or flick it" features where listeners get to vote on new songs. Even nationally syndicated shows do a lot to break new music. They know the format is only as active as they make it. No one wants music to grind to a halt.

 

[Starbucks]

The labels want control. They want to be able to control what stations air and how they air it. By putting a royalty on it, they decide what gets played. They will discount or remove royalty from songs they want played. The bad news is that anytime money is used as an incentive for airplay, without proper identification, it's payola. That's why this royalty will never get passed.
>>>>Sounds logical, and we all hope your right.

You don't need to do heroin to know that it's bad for you. There are ways to assess audience response to music without actually putting it on the air.

>>>>>What? Snippets, that's not good.


Consultants don't make stuff up. Their job is to study the listening and buying audience to get their reaction to music. Radio has their research, and record labels have their research. Everyone is out there asking people what they like, and quite often, both sides end up with the same numbers. The public DOES get a chance to vote on music that gets played on the radio, because programmers and consultants use multiple ways of making music decision. It's not one guy with a "golden gut" any more. There are lots of discussions that take place every day between promotion people (those who are still around) and radio programmers. And lots of radio stations have "pick it or flick it" features where listeners get to vote on new songs. Even nationally syndicated shows do a lot to break new music. They know the format is only as active as they make it. No one wants music to grind to a halt.

>>>>>They have a way of making the format in what direction they like the format to go to. I remember , I would here certain songs on the radio,I use to hate or not like when I first heard it. Then after a period of 10-20 plays or more, instead of pushing the dial button, the song would grow on me. And then i would love it. There's a bunch of songs that are probably out there like that. The point is there are songs sampled for 30 seconds and it becomes a yay or nay with their research team that was hired. it's best to test the song on the hitbound basis over the airwaves. I can tell you been born in this business somewhere between 1990-1993.

 

[TheBigA]

>>>>>What? Snippets, that's not good.

Who saiud snippets?

The point is there are songs sampled for 30 seconds and it becomes a yay or nay with their research team that was hired. it's best to test the song on the hitbound basis over the airwaves.

Maybe you missed where I told you the labels also do research? They don't use snippets. They do things differently. And somehow, thousands and thousands of new songs get on the radio. Are they all great? No. Are some great ones missed? Yes. But given the huge quantity of music recorded and released, the reality that music has to fit certain formats, and the non existent quality control at labels, a lot of great new music gets played on the radio. The system is way more complex and way more competitive than what you say. Lots of people are involved. More than used to be when Rick Sklar was running WABC.

 

[Starbucks]

Maybe you missed where I told you the labels also do research? They don't use snippets. They do things differently. And somehow, thousands and thousands of new songs get on the radio. Are they all great? No. Are some great ones missed? Yes. But given the huge quantity of music recorded and released, the reality that music has to fit certain formats, and the non existent quality control at labels, a lot of great new music gets played on the radio. The system is way more complex and way more competitive than what you say. Lots of people are involved. More than used to be when Rick Sklar was running WABC.

>>>And that's whats wrong with it, thank you. people like Rick Sklar who knew radio. Not corporate consultants that run and research retail like Starbucks. (no pun intended). That's all i can think of as I write this.
This is what will do Mr. Research..... If permitted and it doesn't cause a copyright issue, i'll print a chart of the latest CHR and Hot AC playlist. You and me will review the latest hits and put great, good, sucks, what's it doing on the radio, and anyone else can put their 2 cents in , and see how great everything is. But meanwhile it's time for bed.....( that's separate beds).

 

[TheBigA]

Not corporate consultants that run and research retail like Starbucks. (no pun intended).

The consultants I know all worked in radio as long as Rick Sklar. Some even worked for Rick Sklar. I'm not kidding.

There are two things radio people do when they get fired: Nothing, or become consultants.

 

[jtudor]

Can this thread get back on topic please? Open a new topic to discuss music and the RIAA that does not directly apply to the XM Price increase.

 

[ceaser]

I talked to a sirius rep by phone on saturday night.She told me the price increase is just for new subscribers.

 

[jeffdfw]

I'm out as soon as my three months is up... XM was great before the merger but it is practically unlistenable now. Used to listen to BPM, Watercolors, Fred, Lucy. It is all crap now.

 

[RadioStarOne]

The price increase is for all existing customers. I've got the email to prove it.

 

[Walking On]

That's the thing with SiriusXM, you will be a "new" subscriber as soon as you renew, upgrade, change service, or whatever.

 

[Kent]

That's the thing with SiriusXM, you will be a "new" subscriber as soon as you renew, upgrade, change service, or whatever.

Correct. Those who have lifetime subscriptions will not see a royalty charge, at least not until their radio breaks. However, when your subscription renews in any way, shape or form, you're a new subscriber to them.

 

[radioman148]

How long do you think their "lifetime" will be?

 

[Kent]

How long do you think their "lifetime" will be?

Good question! That's part of why I haven't bothered becoming a lifetime subscriber! Lifetime subscription doesn't mean my lifetime (I hope!), it means the life of my radio (possibly up to 3 depending on whether I'm a Sirius or XM subscriber) and/or the life of the company!