|
Post by donr on May 24, 2014 12:15:58 GMT -6
I'm not at all sure how music publishing for YouTube works. It was the Wild West for years, but since it's google now and the video is nbc, there ought to be some order.
I certainly wouldn't want to beat up the blond harp twins for covering "Reaper" on YouTube. Check out their version, if you haven't seen it.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 24, 2014 12:34:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 25, 2014 11:23:01 GMT -6
I'll make a prediction: The radio royalty rate will soon change, for the worse, because radio will complain that if youtube, spotify and others can get away with paying a royalty rate of 0.01¢ then when should radio have to pay 100 times that?
And then synchronization rates will tumble too.
Edit: Spotify and Pandora pay around .00011 cents per stream.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 25, 2014 11:25:57 GMT -6
Wow that was creepy. Who would have ever thought two hot blonde chicks playing a classic song on electric harps could be that creepy?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 25, 2014 14:55:42 GMT -6
Actually I suspect radio is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into parity with European radio where artists also get paid and songwriters do better than here. Most Americans don't realize that Radio Sweden, for example, pays around $7 a play that gets split between the artist and writers. Yes, that's dollars!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 25, 2014 15:20:44 GMT -6
I think they'd rather shut it all down than pay that.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 25, 2014 16:14:52 GMT -6
Music is still the cheapest form of programming radio has. Copyright on spoken word is way more restrictive.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 25, 2014 19:04:19 GMT -6
But seriously, just watch because if radio isn't lobbying for lower royalty rates now, they soon will be.
And in reference to Bob's "angel investment" comment earlier... Delbert McLinton would never make it in today's music business world. And that saddens me greatly.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 25, 2014 19:36:10 GMT -6
The reason I'm so passionate about this is because most of the great artists of the past 50 years could not have had a career today. It makes me sick.
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on May 25, 2014 20:35:55 GMT -6
Bob
This is precisely my point with the thread. This guy has the chops to join in the company of some greats if given the chance. But sadly, he won't be given that chance. I'd bet every last penny I own, if he'd cheapened himself and went on one of those silly tv shows, he would have been heralded as some kind of mythical artist pseudo legend. He would never do that because he's the real deal. This is the case for many great artist today I think.
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on May 25, 2014 20:39:37 GMT -6
The reason I'm so passionate about this is because most of the great artists of the past 50 years could not have had a career today. It makes me sick. Do you mean strictly from a "business" aspect ? Or also what people today regard as good music ?
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on May 25, 2014 20:49:35 GMT -6
I was listening to Black Sabbath Vol 4 the other day and thinking that there is no way this album would have made it today . The playing and singing is loose , not very tight , but I love it !
Its just crazy . So many "Classic" albums and artists , if they came out today would never make it .
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 25, 2014 21:42:48 GMT -6
I mean they couldn't afford to pursue a music career and would have done something else with their life. Hell, I couldn't have afforded to pursue my career.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 25, 2014 21:46:51 GMT -6
I was listening to Black Sabbath Vol 4 the other day and thinking that there is no way this album would have made it today . The playing and singing is loose , not very tight , but I love it ! Its just crazy . So many "Classic" albums and artists , if they came out today would never make it . Their albums were not what launched their careers. It was live shows. That said, "tight" is bull pucky. It's about communication.
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 25, 2014 23:10:34 GMT -6
Don't forget, the per stream rate is for ONE listener. Radio play assumes whatever audience of people x number of plays, when the compensation was originally hammered out. If station has 50,000 listeners, and the song gets 15 plays a day when it's a hit, that would be equivalent to 750,000 internet plays/day, just on that one station.
Also I would make the point that no songs were hits on their own in the heyday, with the possible exception of a really hot artist's latest. You had to buy airplay, to get the song to first base on radio, with 'independent promotion men.' That was the workaround, so labels didn't directly buy off DJ's and program directors. Payola was real. It probably still goes on, with terrestrial radio.
|
|
|
Post by henge on May 26, 2014 5:30:00 GMT -6
Don't forget, the per stream rate is for ONE listener. Radio play assumes whatever audience of people x number of plays, when the compensation was originally hammered out. If station has 50,000 listeners, and the song gets 15 plays a day when it's a hit, that would be equivalent to 750,000 internet plays/day, just on that one station. Also I would make the point that no songs were hits on their own in the heyday, with the possible exception of a really hot artist's latest. You had to buy airplay, to get the song to first base on radio, with 'independent promotion men.' That was the workaround, so labels didn't directly buy off DJ's and program directors. Payola was real. It probably still goes on, with terrestrial radio. The payola thing is an interesting point! I wonder if it still happens in the new paradigm?
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 26, 2014 6:00:18 GMT -6
Buck is intimating that indeed it IS still happening, but with a degree of separation to meet statutory guidelines.
NOW THEN... Can we open the discussion up to include Sirius/XM and other similar 'satellite' radio providers? My understanding is they pay ø in royalties.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 26, 2014 8:10:41 GMT -6
I mean they couldn't afford to pursue a music career and would have done something else with their life. Hell, I couldn't have afforded to pursue my career. WHO can afford to pursue music these days? It's only a viable industry for less than 1% of the people in it.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 26, 2014 8:21:57 GMT -6
Don't forget, the per stream rate is for ONE listener. Radio play assumes whatever audience of people x number of plays, when the compensation was originally hammered out. If station has 50,000 listeners, and the song gets 15 plays a day when it's a hit, that would be equivalent to 750,000 internet plays/day, just on that one station. Also I would make the point that no songs were hits on their own in the heyday, with the possible exception of a really hot artist's latest. You had to buy airplay, to get the song to first base on radio, with 'independent promotion men.' That was the workaround, so labels didn't directly buy off DJ's and program directors. Payola was real. It probably still goes on, with terrestrial radio. That's why I argue that internet streaming should be valued even more - because I would say they're more valuable. How many of those 50,000 listeners are really listening to their radio? How do they arrive at that number? It's all guesstimates - and has been fair and served us well. But with streaming radio, a user intentionally searches out a genre, a style, and in most cases - the actual artists - to listen to. They are almost 100% of the time assured to be within earshot of the broadcast. The internet listener is MUCH more attentive and valuable to advertisers - and the value should reflect that. I know Spotify and Pandora complain that they wouldn't be able to stay afloat if royalties aren't driven down...well, it's called CAPITALISM. I can't afford to buy steaks every day, maybe Publix shouldgive them to me for a reasonable price...and you know what, I think that reasonable price should be .00011 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 26, 2014 8:24:22 GMT -6
Satellite and streaming have nothing to do with chart performance, so there's not much payola...but there are definitely favors thrown out there to get new artists added to influential XM rotations.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 26, 2014 9:47:52 GMT -6
Don't forget, the per stream rate is for ONE listener. Radio play assumes whatever audience of people x number of plays, when the compensation was originally hammered out. If station has 50,000 listeners, and the song gets 15 plays a day when it's a hit, that would be equivalent to 750,000 internet plays/day, just on that one station. Also I would make the point that no songs were hits on their own in the heyday, with the possible exception of a really hot artist's latest. You had to buy airplay, to get the song to first base on radio, with 'independent promotion men.' That was the workaround, so labels didn't directly buy off DJ's and program directors. Payola was real. It probably still goes on, with terrestrial radio. That's why I argue that internet streaming should be valued even more - because I would say they're more valuable. How many of those 50,000 listeners are really listening to their radio? How do they arrive at that number? It's all guesstimates - and has been fair and served us well. But with streaming radio, a user intentionally searches out a genre, a style, and in most cases - the actual artists - to listen to. They are almost 100% of the time assured to be within earshot of the broadcast. The internet listener is MUCH more attentive and valuable to advertisers - and the value should reflect that. I know Spotify and Pandora complain that they wouldn't be able to stay afloat if royalties aren't driven down...well, it's called CAPITALISM. I can't afford to buy steaks every day, maybe Publix shouldgive them to me for a reasonable price...and you know what, I think that reasonable price should be .00011 cents. WARNING RANTY; This is a discussion of symptoms, not so much of the much greater and core problem that is being ignored. check your knee jerk politics at the door, Capitalism and Socialism both work in theory and on paper, but they are both built upon a very flawed premiss, that all men are Honorable!!!! Back when Bob started out, people believed/cared about much more than the bottom line, greed was more of an outlier, and shame was alive. Now the "what's in it for me" crowd has not only taken over, it is lionized by the day walking mouth breathing populous? Yes these people possess virtually all the capital, and they buy their own laws and make their own rules to take even more! It's parasitic in nature, a parasite by nature, will uncontrollably suck and grow until their host is sucked dry, eventually killing their host and themselves!!(song writers/music industry or who ever?) Don't believe it? see financial collapse and all extenuating circumstances of sept 2008. There are no longer checks and balances, or sense of fairness within this system. People, country, culture and livelihoods be damned, "what's in it for me" rules the day. Control the money, control the message, get gullible people to work against their own best interests, make more money, control the message, get gullible people to work against their own best interest, make more $.......... the circle of the modern day capitalist agenda set upon a dumbed down society continues! Greedy people love stupid as it's easy to get "stupid" to part with it's $. Still don't believe it? two words "kim kardashian", or "tea/dem/repub party" or maybe even "bro country"? It's all a sign of the times, it's everywhere! Mis inform, indoctrinate, propagandize and dismantle peoples ability to unite. It's the tried and trued divide and conquer strategy, only when one of the 3 remaining banks forecloses on their house, do people realize they've been had. If the bulk populous of the artists, from conception through capture of all music, formed a real union, none of this would have happened, power without capital is achieved only in sheer numbers of like minded people in a united front. At this point, achieving a just system of compensation for your efforts is a sheer cliff climb battle, forget about "up hill"! Of course as always, JMO And to be Clear, i'm calling no one here stupid, very much respect for all, i'm just trying to point out the not so obvious as i see it. RANT OVER LOL
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 26, 2014 10:10:28 GMT -6
See - you and I are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED on this subject - so, since I own the board, we aren't going to get into a political discussion. (This board is a Benevolent Monarchy) I was actually saying exactly the opposite. Spotify and Pandora are complaining to the government (who is listening btw) that they can't survive in the free market having to pay all those darn songwriters...To me, if your business plan is so bad that you can't afford to make it, you have a shitty business plan. It didn't stop the last CEO from banking $30 million dollars (exactly the way communism works - benefitting the few on the backs of the many)...
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 26, 2014 10:24:14 GMT -6
See - you and I are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED on this subject - so, since I own the board, we aren't going to get into a political discussion. (This board is a Benevolent Monarchy) I was actually saying exactly the opposite. Spotify and Pandora are complaining to the government (who is listening btw) that they can't survive in the free market having to pay all those darn songwriters...To me, if your business plan is so bad that you can't afford to make it, you have a shitty business plan. It didn't stop the last CEO from banking $30 million dollars (exactly the way communism works - benefitting the few on the backs of the many)... come on JK, read my post again, spotify and pandora do have a shitty model, just like the banks did, they lobby and buy their own rules by buying influence in government, i wasn't putting up an argument to support any political platform(i'm actually supporting YOU), if anything, i'm putting up an argument against fascism("the hijacking of government by monied interests" by definition), and advocating for the rights of people, it's about simple justice, your response is as if you didn't read my post beyond the first line, but what ever man, i said my piece.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 26, 2014 10:47:05 GMT -6
Control the money, control the message, get gullible people to work against their own best interests, make more money, control the message, get gullible people to work against their own best interest, make more $.......... the circle of the modern day capitalist agenda set upon a dumbed down society continues! Greedy people love stupid as it's easy to get "stupid" to part with it's $. Still don't believe it? two words "kim kardashian", or "tea/dem/repub party" or maybe even "bro country"? It's all a sign of the times, it's everywhere! Mis inform, indoctrinate, propagandize and dismantle peoples ability to unite. It's the tried and trued divide and conquer strategy, only when one of the 3 remaining banks forecloses on their house, do people realize they've been had. Dude...I don't know how else to read this... But I've said my peace.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 26, 2014 11:28:34 GMT -6
Dude...I don't know how else to read this... But I've said my peace. respectfully, allow me to clarify, and i'll move on, the statement is MO, I prefaced it with "rant", it's my personal condemnation of ALL political parties, and the behavior of the heavily "monied"(spotify types etc.) Political parties are ALL bought and paid for, and yes, as far as people go, stupid is as stupid does(i put at the bottom of that post i was referring to no one here), you yourself have railed against this kind of stuff, but IMO a very put a bandaid on the symptom approach. I'm interested in seeing you get paid, because if i'm ever fortunate enough to write a hit song, i'd like to get paid as well. There are some big fundamental flaws with our system when a shitty company like spotify can (for all intents and purposes) pay government into ruling that you're getting paid too much, when any rational minded human can see the truth is otherwise? Are you diametrically opposed to this belief?? because that is the crux of my argument. I'm pointing out that complaining about, and bandaiding a symptom of the greater infection/flaw, is a myopic concentration in the wrong area, and tantamount to ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room IMV There is nothing wrong with strong worded opinionated debate, as long as it is respectful, i'm trying to adhere to this. If you don't see it my way, i guess we'll agree to disagree, i still consider you a bro though.
|
|