Musicians. Public opinions? Compensation? FAIL.
Okay. So I’m sitting here drinking my noontime coffee, browsing the mainstream news and debating on what to have for lunch. I came across an article from the good ol’ AP that awakened the sleeping blogger in me. To read that article, it’s here:
In a nutshell:
Which top-selling artist purportedly had his new single cut from some U.S. radio stations playlists in retaliation for supporting royalties for musicians?
No one involved will name the recording artist but his no-play treatment by several radio stations is alleged in a complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission and obtained by The Associated Press. It claims recording artists are being threatened and intimidated.
A large part of the “intimidation” in the music industry against artists having their own opinions about things goes to a simple (in the U.S.) First Amendment right. Radio stations have the right NOT to play a single no matter how popular it is. We all remember the Dixie Chicks, right? They had an opinion about George W. Bush, and the next thing we know, country and western radio stations in the United States are banning all airplay of Dixie Chick’s music, presumably in an effort to injure their record sales. How dare they have a negative opinion of the President. So, the DJs are allowed to have an opinion and manipulate what the public hears if it doesn’t follow what they believe in. But, it didn’t hurt the Chick’s popularity, did it? Their manager was probably on the phone with comments like “You can’t buy this kind of publicity.”
In that light, it makes perfect sense that none of the parties involved in this particular case are willing to name the person or band who is being opinion-banned from radio this time. Might get sued, you know.
In the filing, the musicFIRST Coalition says the top-selling artist — there are hints it could be U2 frontman Bono — recently released a new album and spoke during April in support of an effort to require radio stations to pay musicians royalties similar to those paid to songwriters.
Soon after, it said, “several stations within a major radio broadcast group notified the artist’s label that they would no longer play his single on the air.
Could it be Bono? Who is it? Who dares to claim equality for musicians and songwriters across the board in terms of royalties owed by radio stations?
I find it interesting that, rather than publish facts to the contrary saying “We pay this much per year in publishing royalties, and it would cost us this much more”, they simply try to silence the artist period. Hit him in his wallet, where it counts. It is still so much easier to silence someone with an opinion than provide a fact-based counter on which we’ll be able to judge whether it’s right or wrong.
Let’s have a couple reality checks here. First of all, someone who writes a song usually has a publishing company, or at least does it themselves. If they have any waves lapping at the industry, they are signed to SOCAN (in Canada), or either ASCAP or BMI in the U.S. These organizations exist to collect royalties on songs for songwriters. If I want to do a cover version of a song, I apply to these organizations and pay whatever royalty is applied to the songwriter (not necessarily the original musician who performed the song) for the right to record the song. Radio stations generally pay a blanket license fee to these organizations in order to compensate the artist. This allows them to avoid having to account for every single song they play in a 24 hour period. You played U2’s latest single 7 times today, and you played someone else’s track once. Doesn’t matter, the blanket license shall cover all.
According to ASCAP’s website, in 2007 the statuatory mechanical royalty payable per composition is 9.1 cents. That’s all, folks. 9.1 cents. ASCAP says:
This statutory mechanical rate represents the songwriter/music publishing royalties payable for songs contained on all physical audio recordings which are made and distributed from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 regardless of the date of the mechanical license or the date that the particular recording was initially released.
So, the math is simple. Every time a $15 CD of yours gets sold, the record label gets to pay out $9.10 in royalties. This gets paid to the songwriter and NOT the musician. I could write one song for U2, and every time a CD of theirs gets sold, I’ll get 9.1 cents out of the deal. U2, being astoundingly popular, will probably take home a lot more money off this deal than I will. But, there’s more:
This royalty rate applies unless the music publisher and songwriter have agreed to a lesser rate in the mechanical license or controlled composition clause of the recording artist agreement (e.g., 75% statutory).
Here comes that little music industry devil: the controlled composition clause. With this tricky bastard in my contract, my record label can say “Okay. You really want to record Joe Songwriter’s song? We don’t like it. It’s not a radio-friendly unit shifter. So, according to the contract, you’ll take half a rate on that song.” So, the poor songwriter who has a really good song for me will only collect half of 9.1 cents per unit sold, because the contract says if the label doesn’t like it, they get to pay discount prices for it. Plus, if the songwriter signed his publishing rights to the record label, he walks away with whatever sum, and if that song does in fact become a radio hit, well, that’s it. None of that revenue will ever see the songwriter’s pocket.
There’s the obvious two-sided coin here that I’ve talked about before. A massively popular group like U2 can write, or pick any song they want. Throw the U2 name on it, and it could be a guaranteed seller. U2 is going to walk away with a good chunk of change. I’m still getting 9.1 cents per CD sold. This changes with a new artist, which is where you’re a lot more likely to see controlled composition clauses. We know that a new artist is billed on his royalty statement for everything from that limo-lunch meeting with the A&R representative to the flowers she got backstage after a performance, to promotional costs….and in a lot of cases, an artist will hear something like “Congratulations! Your album just sold a million copies! You owe your label $500,000!” What? Well, after management, label and attorney take their cut off the artist’s take-in off the top….so there’s a lot less money left over, but we do have to remember that the CD manufacturing plant, the cover artist, all these people have to get paid….and then the artist. By the time we get to him, he owes owes owes. But, the songwriter may still get paid whatever percentage of statuatory rate is in his contract. If it’s the artist who wrote the song…..well, might as well send that back to the label, because you still owe.
Now that we have this information under our belts, let us not forget that the record labels also indulge in “payola”, meaning that there could be a kickback for KRUD Radio if they’ll put song X on heavy rotation, and, well, we’ll pay you to keep song Y off your station as well. This was huge in the 80’s–in fact, an organization set themselves up in Mafia style to make good money off of it. It’s watered down to “We’ll give you free tickets to artist Y’s concert if you’ll play artist Z’s more radio friendly hit instead” in most cases, but it’s still there.
Now, do I feel that musicians should be paid every time their song is played on the radio? Well, for the debut-album “new kid on the block” artist, it might help to offset some of the debt he/she incurs with the label, but it will more than likely wind up a zero-sum game. For a well known artist, it’ll simply mean more money in their pockets. This means that it doesn’t really even the playing field for artists across the board.
I have to be fair to radio stations as well. In the age where music is freely downloadable (unless you go through something like iTunes), information and public opinion on a record is widely available on the Internet and anyone can set up their own Internet radio station to broadcast goodness knows what, radio is struggling to stay alive. Many have gone to automated DJs, at least during certain hours, because advertising dollars are getting pinched a little bit more, and a little bit more. So, I can understand when they’re balking at doubling that blanket licensing fee so that the guy behind the guitar gets paid as well. This goes against the idea that radio is really simply a promotional vehicle. Record label sends radio station a free promotional CD of established and up-and-coming artists. DJ plays it. I hear it, and go “Wow! What a phenomenal song….really touches my heart. *sniffle*” So, I go out and spend $15 on the CD. Bingo. In an ideal world, Radio Station did it’s job, Artist gets paid, and Songwriter gets paid the stat rate plus whatever he gets out of the blanket licensing fee. The radio station generally makes its money off of commercial advertising dollars, so adding another fee really would damage a media format that is already struggling to survive in a high-tech ocean.
What I strongly disagree with, though, is that radio stations feel that in order to combat this menace, they feel the need to silence an artist entirely, or in another case:
Before an interview, an artist was pressured by a Texas radio station to state on the air that the Performance Rights Act would cripple radio stations.
So, either we’re not allowed to have opinions, or we’ll be told what opinions to air in public. It’s much the same in Hollywood, where an actor who voices his or her opinion about something against the party line gets blacklisted. Done. You’ll never work in this town again. These people, in Hollywood or the music industry at large, will say out of one side of their mouths “We do this because we love music”, and then use blatant censorship of the music for an artist who, outside of music, voices an opinion.
Next up, it’s Famous Artist #2 with no opinion and another song about fucking for all you teenagers out there in Radioland.
Do I believe musicians should be compensated for their work? Yes. Songwriters too. However, I’m starting to get very, very tired of the U2’s and the Metallicas of the world complaining that their bank accounts just aren’t fat enough. What they are complaining about does nothing for newer artists being painfully screwed by their record labels, songwriters literally selling their souls for a song (no pun intended?) in a lot of cases, and may conceivably put non-corporately owned radio stations out of business. If you want to fight it, though, Radio Stations, then open a conversation and leave our music out of it. In some ways, I may be playing devil’s advocate, but at least I can hope I’m playing fair.
Leave a Reply