Performance Rights Act

[Nijyo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8108379.stm

 

Opinions?

[daddymack]

This has been coming for a long time, but the odds are, unless the artists can make some kind of accomodation between the publishers, the writers and the labels, the radio stations will not pay artists for the use of recordings. Why would they? The traditional symbiotic relationship with radio as a promotional arm of record labels would seem to be failing, and the rise of classic rock/oldies formats means that 'legacy' music is still on the air. But performers technically have no financial interest beyond sale of hard product (of course, now downloads are included), and really, this smell of some kind of desperation...I agree the artists brought the music 'alive', but they were compensated via their take of record sales.

If the artists are going after radio, they should have gone after the jukebox companies first, where there was a more logical and direct relationship between product, plays and income.

[Kramerguy]

I find it interesting that (most of) the rest of the world uses a model that does pay the artist, successfully. I'd like to read more about that aspect of it before figuring out how I feel about it.

[daddymack]

 

I find it interesting that (most of) the rest of the world uses a model that does pay the artist, successfully. I'd like to read more about that aspect of it before figuring out how I feel about it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I thnk the artists should be entitled to a fair use fee...but they should have gone after this decades ago...that said, in the old days, airplay was THE promotion that fueled record sales. Why didn't they raise this issue when MTV and VH1 were burgeoning music outlets (instead of cheap 'reality TV outlets)? Because the labels were still all-powerful masters of the media ...which they no longer are.

[Nijyo]

 

Don't get me wrong, I thnk the artists should be entitled to a fair use fee...but they should have gone after this decades ago...that said, in the old days, airplay was THE promotion that fueled record sales. Why didn't they raise this issue when MTV and VH1 were burgeoning music outlets (instead of cheap 'reality TV outlets)? Because the labels were still all-powerful masters of the media ...which they no longer are.

 

 

While true, radio/media/etc isn't going anywhere, even if the particular ways it is transmitted will change. I'm a little less concerned as to why its being done now, and more interested on what the practical impact could be for folks who do performing on recordings, but not the writing.

 

How is it that many of the pop icons of the last 30 years that *did* get rich and famous without writing their own songs managed to do so? Contractually? By licensing of their "selves" for product lines and such? Touring?

[daddymack]

 

How is it that many of the pop icons of the last 30 years that *did* get rich and famous without writing their own songs managed to do so? Contractually? By licensing of their "selves" for product lines and such? Touring?

The key in the past was record sales. Touring was strictly a promotional tool to generate sales. Licensing really was a side consideration until the Monkees, a manufactured band that existed solely to make money...for someone else (note that none of those guys managed to keep in the musical forefront, or become industry icons...the only one really well off is Mike Nesmith, and more for his inheritance than his own skills). Although the Beatles had done the licensing route, their major income in the 60s was record sales, and then publishing.

By the 70s bands like KISS saw the marketing potential of everything from lunchboxes to pocket radios to action figures, makeup kits, Halloween costumes...ad nauseum.

Groups like the Four Tops, the Temptations, etc. were being handed songs through the Motown stable of writers, a process perfected a generation earlier at Chess Records and several other 'race music' labels...with a slight difference: in some cases, the songwriters were contractually obligated to put the artist (and many times the producer/label owners) on the copyright for the song, allowing them to share in the income stream beyond the sale of the record, since covering of songs was prevalent in the Blues/R&B genre inthe 40s and 50s. This has been a point of contention for guys like Willie Dixon, who literally wrote most of the Chess catalogue, yet was never wealthy from all the material he wrote. (there is an apochyphal story of him painting the lobby at Chess Records when the Rolling Stones came to pay homage).

 

Basically, since the 70s, it is all about creating and selling an image...marketing everything and anything. Record sales and touring don't make millionaires. Some smart artists start their own publishing companies and get the publishing of all songs they record moved to their company, which increases their revenue stream. Some, like Madonna, 'write' books, knowing their name will get them on the NYT best sellers list...some have their own cosmetics or clothing lines...