Country Radio & Royalty discussion

[TheBigA]

We've had several discussions here about the proposed Performance Royalty Act, that would require terrestrial radio to pay a percentage of its revenues to record labels and artists. There is a fascinating article written by R-I's Phyllis Stark for country radio. While artists of other genres have been outspoken supporters of the Act, country artists have been less vocal. In fact, after the Grammy Awards, all performers signed a letter promoting the Act EXCEPT the country artists. That meant that Taylor Swift, Carrie Underwood, Keith Urban, and Brad Paisley purposely didn't sign a letter written by NARAS. That was a gutsy move on their part. Now there is a possibility that their courage has been repremanded. According to Stark, country artists didn't thank country radio in their acceptance speeches at last month's ACM Awards. As Stark points out, that seems a bit unusual. She wonders if the powers that be at the labels are beating on the artists' heads about thanking radio for their success. I mean, let's face it: Without constant airplay, these artists wouldn't be the multi-millionaires that they are. The artists who receive the most airplay, such as Kenny Chesney, Tim McGraw, and Toby Keith, are able to command the highest prices for concerts, and are consequently among the richest musicians in any genre. Why shouldn't they thank the poor, overworked and underpaid folks who play their records? That of course doesn't matter to the labels, who are struggling and firing staff. Phyllis says the artists are caught in the middle.

Anyway, here's a link to Phyllis's article:

http://www.radio-info.com/sections/...hill-countrys-close-artistradio-relationships

 

[Gatekeeper007]

In almost all forms of music without the broadcast radio indrusty it would have a very very hard time surviving at any great level. If radio stations weren't busting their butts to play the latest materal out there then the distrubtion of that materal would slow way way down and in some cases come to a hault at least for a long while. Maybe the record companies ie labels need to think about paying radio stations to play their materal because lets face it electricty, tower rent, current copyrights, internet service, ect... aren't getting any cheaper and yet for the commerical stations people and businesses seem to think that commericals should be cheaper while times are hard(don't even get me started on non commerical stations). Lets face it without the distribution of materal ie songs that radio stations put out there every day, Royalties would drop like a rock all across the music indrusty. Some people will aruge that the internet, ipod's, newer cell phones, ect.. with their new distrubtion methods could handle the load, well forget that the internet is still handycapped for speed and bandwith in alot of the country, ipod's are out there but not in everyones hands a better number is maybe 1 out of 10 if your lucky and I don't think so, as for mobile communications like cell phones yes the newer cell phones can do many things but there not in everyones hands either yet and won't be for a long while answer that distrubtion indrusty is not ready yet and won't be for a few years yet so broadcast radio is still the main distrubtion fall back for the record and recorded industry they just need to be shook up a little so they can wake up.

 

[Prais]

Gatekeeper said, "In almost all forms of music without the broadcast radio indrusty it would have a very very hard time surviving at any great level."
___________________________________
Man, you must have written this in 1965, None of my college age kids EVER listen to radio, but get their muic from internet sources.

 

[davideduardo]

Lets face it without the distribution of materal ie songs that radio stations put out there every day, Royalties would drop like a rock all across the music indrusty. Some people will aruge that the internet, ipod's, newer cell phones, ect.. with their new distrubtion methods could handle the load, well forget that the internet is still handycapped for speed and bandwith in alot of the country, ipod's are out there but not in everyones hands a better number is maybe 1 out of 10 if your lucky and I don't think so, as for mobile communications like cell phones yes the newer cell phones can do many things but there not in everyones hands either yet and won't be for a long while answer that distrubtion indrusty is not ready yet and won't be for a few years yet so broadcast radio is still the main distrubtion fall back for the record and recorded industry ....

Like movies, the bulk of recorded music is sold to teens and young adults. In that age group, ownership of iPods and other mp3 players is close to universal. While cost limits smart phones, the same people who can afford regular music purchases also have this kind of phone. And you forget computers, which are also pretty close to universal as is Internet connectivity.

You are off... way off... since the ownership of mp3 players is closer to the 60% level, and much higer in the younger demos. Most brick and mortar record stores have closed, and retailers like Best Buy and WalMart have limited selections of top selling releases. The internet has become a dominant force in the exposure of new music and the sale of music as well.

The problem is that record labels are still resistent to accepting the way consumers want to buy music... we have had one of the major label that, for a while, did not licence iTunes... and they complicate purchasing rather than understanding that a huge majority of consumers don't want to buy a 10 song album that has 8 clunkers on it. The Internet and its accesories allow people to consume music the way the want, and much of radio is changing to complement this reality.