Radio One talk about the music tax bill

[rapking]

On the Russ Parr Morning show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTJTqoZxZ70

 

[Word!]

I think Kathy Hughes tried to get with John Conyers and he turned her down, so she's on a vengence.

Remember that Kathy is a Uncle Tom hating on Obama, shes a republican and a business woman, doing a dis-service to the Black communities with her stations.

In the Russ parr interview, she stated "erybody aint as happy as we are in the black community, erybody aint celebrating that we have a black president." Hello????????????? In 2008 she said "i want someone in there that has done more than take photos, umm waved."

2faced b*****

And I'm kind of confused why she went on Russ Parr when her very own Rickey Smiley is on in more markets now. I really want to know her motives.

In the Russ Parr interview, she was talking about the Gospel and community stations shutting down. Well it wont just be Black radio, it will be ALLLL radio that have similar setups with brokered, small christian or other community stations owned by non minorities or in fact, OTHER minorities such as Polish, Russian, Asian, etc.........

The bill is no good, but i still believe most of this is personal.

 

[urbanradio704]

Cathy Hughes actually went on all of the Radio One syndicated programs that week, and many local programs as well. If there was a bill that was threatening to put me out of business, or take food out of my mouth I would be going on all my shows and sounding the alarm too or running 'Reality Radio' ads as well. I still have alot of respect for Cathy Hughes, she's accomplished and overcome alot.

 

[beantownradio25]

Music Radio is already dying a slow and painful death with the Internet and i-pods, and all this new bill will do is enforce it. We will see quite a few stations go talk.

Another sign of the greedy record companies trying to get the most money out of every little thing.

 

[Scholarm1111]

Agreed, this is a very bad bill for urban contemporary radio and music radio in general. It is a real shame that President Obama and many others who would otherwise seem "enlightened" are supporting it. As of the current time however, the supporters do not have a majority in the U.S. House of Reps but I am sure they will keep trying or maybe even attach it to another bill. The big supporters - Conyers, Feinstein, Berman all get lots of donations from the record companies.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Cathy Hughes actually went on all of the Radio One syndicated programs that week, and many local programs as well. If there was a bill that was threatening to put me out of business, or take food out of my mouth I would be going on all my shows and sounding the alarm too or running 'Reality Radio' ads as well. I still have alot of respect for Cathy Hughes, she's accomplished and overcome alot.

I have respect for Cathy Hughes too, but her insistence that the radio royalties bill will put her company out of business is unfounded, if not outright dishonest. (It's not a tax at all.) Besides, Radio One did a pretty good job of hurting itself without any help.

 

[Word!]

I have respect for Cathy Hughes too, but her insistence that the radio royalties bill will put her company out of business is unfounded, if not outright dishonest. (It's not a tax at all.) Besides, Radio One did a pretty good job of hurting itself without any help.

They call it a "tax" for the general public to understand. Start talking industry talk and folks will go HUH? :-\

 

[urbanradio704]

The whole thing just don't make sense. Why would you charge the source that's driving your sales? It's free advertising, radio should be charging for that too then. Cathy Hughes and Radio One are irrelevant, I applaud Cathy's effort, but it has nothing to do with the bill. Her ads are hyped, yes, but she's doing something and protecting her own. Gotta love it. Radio don't need another blow.

 

[Nate Wesley]

They call it a "tax" for the general public to understand.

MIS-understand, as no government entity would be collecting this money. The radio lobbyists are conflating things to mine support from the low-thinking, 'all taxes are bad' crowd.

Start talking industry talk and folks will go HUH? :-\

You don't need industry jargon to explain the situation in a nutshell:

There are special royalties paid to artists/recording companies when their music is used on broadcasts for TV, internet radio, and satellite radio--old fashioned AM/FM stations have been exempt from these royalties for decades, paying royalties only for songwriters. One side (the MusicFIRST coalition) thinks this exemption should stop for a myriad of reasons--meanwhile, the broadcast industry thinks the exemptions should continue for a myriad of reasons. Both sides have lined up lawyers, lobbyists, and Congressional representation on the matter.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Why would you charge the source that's driving your sales?

You apparently weren't paying attention to the drama surrounding the royalty collectors and the internet radio community, who are (or were) much closer to 'Mom & Pop' operations than the Clear Channels and Radio Ones of the world. Even streaming services like Live365 have had to scale back their much of their usefulness so that they wouldn't rack up massive costs for broadcasting music online.

Today, if you want to start an internet radio station that aims to have as many listeners as possible, you've got to pay the royalty pipers. There is still reasonable debate today that these rates are too high, but that's another discussion entirely . What is not up for discussion: The ability of terrestrial broadcasters to pay these same artist/record company royalties, probably at a negotiated rate that's lower than the internet stations (remember, AM & FMs have been exempt from paying them at all).

That, and simple radio exposure is not an equitable substitute for compensation. Unless you sign a separate deal with me as MC Nate Wesley allowing your station(s) to air my stuff without royalties (deals which radio could do with untold numbers of unsigned or independent artists)--you can pay me and my studio backing for the privilege. Music is radio content, and so is a talk show. If you wouldn't tell a popular radio host to work for free, then why should I allow you to use my hit song to attract listeners (and advertisers) to your station for nothing?


I don't so much want to see Nicki Minaj and Cash Money/Universal Records get more money so much as I'd like to see the radio industry pay their fair share with regards to new methods of listening and enjoying music. If anything, the internet stations are probably closer to 'local music stores' (i.e. iTunes, eMusic, Rhapsody, Amazon.com/Amazon MP3) than the radio stations are.

 

[urbanradio704]

I'm a strong believer in the KISS (Keep it simple stupid) method. You need to learn not to ramble. But anyway, the point is, if record companies want to be compensated for their music, why shouldn't radio charge for advertising? Most of these artists wouldn't be successful if they didn't get radio play and most of these radio stations wouldn't make any money if they didn't play music. It's mutually beneficial, this charge would be unfair to radio stations. Internet radio stations being deeper in the streets is absolutely rediculous. I've never heard an internet radio station doing anything for the community. Radio reaches over 90% of people over the age of 12 in this country. I work in radio and we don't need another blow because the record companies think of a new way to rip someone off.

 

[Nate Wesley]

if record companies want to be compensated for their music, why shouldn't radio charge for advertising?

IIRC, that's actually legal as long as the radio station discloses the paid spins to listeners. Where both radio and the recording company have often gotten in trouble is by trying to keep any such money-changing private.

Most of these artists wouldn't be successful if they didn't get radio play

You'd be 100% correct if it were 1990. It's 2010, and radio is just the old veteran in an iPod and Pandora world. New platforms and new tech provides a better, more thorough listening experience. Thanks to Music Choice, I've heard more new jams on the 'Hip-Hop & R&B' channel than I would ever hear thanks to the music/program director of your station.

and most of these radio stations wouldn't make any money if they didn't play music. It's mutually beneficial, this charge would be unfair to radio stations.

LOL @ fairness. Other mediums have to pay these artist royalties. Radio is not so special or delicate that it warrants special treatment, the industry is the complete opposite of a non-profit venture.

If anything, many radio companies have been able to twist cheap concerts and low-or-no-pay appearances out of performers in exchange for continued airplay. And urban radio might possibly be the biggest perpetrator of this.

Internet radio stations being deeper in the streets is absolutely rediculous. I've never heard an internet radio station doing anything for the community. Radio reaches over 90% of people over the age of 12 in this country. I work in radio and we don't need another blow because the record companies think of a new way to rip someone off.

When I read that, you know what I can't help but think of? What the manager of a buggy whip company might have said about 'horseless carriages'.

Okay, maybe my above example is too dramatic. But consider Pittsburgh's 101TheBlaze.com, started by a former WAMO-FM program director--it's the only locally-based urban outfit in the city, and its putting out info like this. That changes the game on what 'the community' is, and who your station reaches. Further, Bridge Ratings has issued a report guessing that most of the growth from terrestrial broadcasters will be online--and through new music channels not found on terrestial radio!

Folks haven't abandoned regular radio. But you'd be a fool to think radio's current audience heft is in any way solidified, or that your job won't go anywhere.