Pandora Internet Radio Nears Its 'Last Stand'

[Phil O'Keefe]

they NEED music (or something) to get listeners - and it seems reasonable to expect them to pay for the programming they need.

 

And talk radio is essentially free (exchange programming for a certain amount of ad spots from the stations), which is another reason why radio has changed. If you can attract listeners without having to pay licensing fees, it's a smart business move.

 

Of course it's sad from an artistic viewpoint... but maybe artists and producers and publishers and the PRO's could band together to do something similar - provide packages / programs of copyright cleared music to terrestrial and satellite radio and internet stations in exchange for a share of the ad revenue or ad space...

 

Of course, if the music sux and / or if it, for some reason, doesn't attract an audience of listeners for the ads to reach, it all falls apart.

[Saturnine10]

I heart Pandora

[Music Calgary]

Craig's posts outline very clearly why Phil's solution will never work -- if you are relying on musicians for consistency and clear-headed strategies it's going to be a lean summer.

 

It all comes down to this. Here we sit in the muck we created. No amount of Anderton-based sophistry affects that -- wish though we might. As long as we continue to simply reward optics and leave fundamentals unquestioned nothing will change.

[Geoff Grace]

Sophistry? Optics?

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[slight-return]

Optics?

 

 

I think we DO have somebody that is into telescope making here

 

I want to say John Sayers, but I can't remember fo shizzy

[Anderton]

It's one thing to call an argument fallacious, and another to show HOW it's fallacious. Let's look at my last post, line by line, and play "Find the Fallacious (or Tricky and Beguiling) Reasoning"!

 

The issue is so much more complex than a lot of people make it out to be.

 

Not fallacious. It is complex.

 

Of course, if a record company just ups and stiffs an artist, then they should be sued, vilified, and nailed to the wall.

 

Anyone disagree? I thought not. BTW, "nailed to the wall" is figurative, not literal. But you knew that. Next...

 

Fortunately it's getting harder for companies to cook the books, as so many are publicly held and their finances have to be pretty transparent.

 

True. It was much easier to cook books back in the 50s, when you didn't have shareholders looking over your shoulder.

 

And I've never signed a contract that didn't give me the right to bring in an accountant and inspect a company's books.

 

True (you'll just have to take my word for it).

 

I thought one of the classier moves was when a label bought Chess Records and paid all the back royalties owed to black artists who'd been screwed over in the 50s and 60s.

 

Matter of pubic record.

 

But sometimes the reason why an artist doesn't make money off of records is because of greed, and sometimes it's a shrewd business move. In the former, they think they're the next Beatles and run up the recoupables - really expensive videos, top-notch directors, models that cost $1,000 an hour, limos to and from the shoot, spending hundreds of hours in a world-class studio, etc. Now, this isn't their money - yet; it's the record company's which is essentially serving as a bank making an interest-free loan - and if the record doesn't sell, the record company is exposed to a huge amount of risk. There's also the issue of why a record company would let an act get away with this, but that's another story.

 

Anyone find anything untrue with this statement? No? Okay, next...

 

On the other hand a band might make a calculated gamble to do expensive videos and such on the assumption that it will make them big stars, thus increasing their draw on the road and generating $$ in the merch department. For them, it might make a lot of economic sense to concede $2-$3 million in record royalties to net $10 million from touring, and further a career in the process.

 

Anyone think this has never happened? No? Okay, next...

 

Finally, artists don't have to sign contracts: They can walk away if they don't like it.

 

True.

 

I negotiate my own contracts, and I put in lot of "subject to artist's approval, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld"-type clauses. On my book contracts, I also insert a clause about being able to purchase the plates used for printing at scrap metal cost should the book go out of print - that way it can just go to another publisher. I add a lot of things, some of them unreasonable that I can "concede" at the last moment to make sure I get the things that are reasonable and do matter to me.

 

True, but you'll have to take my word for it.

 

For my last major label CD, I gave the label a DAT where I paid for the mastering myself and basically said "take it or leave it." I asked how much they were doing for their first pressing, calculated the royalties on that, and specified that as an advance.

 

True.

 

With all the magazines for whom I write, I retain rights to the articles so I can "recycle" them in books or other formats.

 

True.

 

Everything is negotiable. If an artist makes a deal that sucks, then the artist has to bear some responsibility.

 

The only way I could see arguing with this is if you believe that it is a record company's duty to look out for the best interest of the artist. That would be nice, but the way I see it, it's the record company's duty to look out for their best interests, and my duty to look out for my best interests. That's why we negotiate.

 

Total fallacious reasoning count: None that I can see.

[Geoff Grace]

 

Word of the day:

 

sophistry |?s

[Anderton]

Let's play "Find the Fallacious Reasoning" in this post, too!

 

Here are some links so you can see the current state of reality. The second link by Danny Goldberg is particularly interesting, as he made the transition from major to indie.

 

http://www.performermag.com/IndieVSMajorContracts.php

 

http://rapcoalition.org/label_exec_$$_breakdown.htm

 

These are real links.

 

This isn't to say major labels are pure as the driven snow; demanding to pay the same royalty rates for CDs as for vinyl when the CD appeared ("Well the cost will go down, it's digital!") is a good example, even though it is a couple decades old, and the world was a different place then. Trying to avoid paying royalties on digital downloads is another, as is taking publishing from acts who don't realize they can negotiate these things.

 

Fallacy meter is showing nothing. These are actual nasty things that actual labels have done.

 

But the simple fact of the matter is that your "machine" is set up to sell large numbers of records and has large expenses. The reason for so much consolidation and buyouts of labels is because parent companies expected to make huge amounts of bucks. They didn't. Catalog is worth something, because all costs have already been recouped - but these days, major labels THEMSELVES cannot sustain the machine that produces something like "Thriller."

 

Pretty self-evident if you look at the state of the major labels, but I'm open to opposing opinions about why the future is so bright for major labels they have to wear shades.

 

This is why independent labels now have a market share that is more than many major labels of yore,

 

Matter of public record.

 

and more artists are deciding to go with indies, or market their own music. They don't have to feed a machine with overhead, artists that get strung out on junk and fail to deliver records, etc.

 

Matter of public record. Read interviews with artists in magazines.

 

So, bottom line: There are now "machines" on all levels, from major labels selling Nickleback to little, efficient, four-cylinder "machines" where the artist may not sell as much in terms of volume, but makes more overall.

 

Matter of public record.

 

Don't kid yourself: Even the CDs on the card tables are part of a machine.

 

Anyone disagree? Granted, it's a small machine, but it's a machine.

 

It's just a machine that I personally find more worthy of support - and not just for philosophical reasons, but because the music is more interesting.

 

Uh-oh!!! Fallacy meter shows a reading!! The music is not ALWAYS more interesting. Some of it really sucks. Let me modify that statement and run it through the fallacy meter again...

 

It's just a machine that I personally find more worthy of support - and not just for philosophical reasons, but because I frequently find that the music is more interesting.

 

Okay...fixed. The fallacy meter isn't moving.

[Anderton]

Word of the day:   sophistry |?s