Brindle Media

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

This week, the RIAA sent 5 people to the National Association of Broadcaters’ headquarters in Washington DC with a blow-up pig to protest NAB’s stance against the Performance Rights Act. NAB responded by sending them a sausage pizza.

Dennis Wharton, the NAB’s Executive VP says:”It’s no surprise that RIAA is now employing silly frat-boy stunts, given its well-documented practice of suing college kids to rescue a bankrupt business model. It also seems appropriate for RIAA to use an inflatable pig as its mascot, since its foreign-owned members would be the biggest beneficiaries of performance tax pork. RIAA is losing this issue on Capitol Hill and in the court of public opinion, and today’s demonstration represents a new low in a campaign of utter desperation.”

About the sausage pizza, Wharton noted, “We’re suggesting they provide this food to the scores of exploited musicians who have had to sue their record label to recoup allegedly unpaid album royalties.”

As music industry veteran Steve Meyer notes in his DISC & DigitalAudioTechnology (Music & Digital Audio/Video News):
“All the artists who have earned a whole lot of money from selling a whole lot of records from a whole lot of radio play should think twice before they try and get what they wish for. Because if the Performance Tax is ever passed, a whole lot of newer artists won’t have the same ability to make a whole lot of money from record sales because they will most likely not receive the same whole lot of airplay. But that’s my opinion.”

“Back to the RIAA and their lame brained stunt. Labels fund the RIAA, and they should demand the costs of the stunt be deducted from the salaries of all those in the association who thought it was a good idea to draw attention to a matter so far removed from the public’s consciousness. It accomplished nothing and it allowed the NAB to retaliate with words the public is more likely to side with.”

(Read Steve’s weekly newsletters at www.freewebs.com/stevemeyer )

I like the sausage pizza move and Wharton’s responses but, unfortunately, visuals tend to trump the written and spoken word with we humans so I think that radio broadcasters need to respond with their own creative and iconic visual to represent the greedy labels and those ungrateful artists who dismiss FREE promotion and advocacy of their work as having no value.

Any suggestions?

Note to MusicFIRST: In a survey of its readers the broadcast trade, INSIDE RADIO asked if the Performance Rights Act were passed would they consider switching their music-formated radio stations to talk, sports or news programming. More than half (52%) said yes. A third of those responding said that their decision would be based on the size of the royalty payments.

musicFIRST is at it again.

Yesterday, Dionne Warwick was in Washington trying to persuade Congress to pass the Performance Rights Act. According to Dionne, “This is a critical issue for not only those of us who have made music our careers, but for those who are trying to make a name for themselves in the business. Performers from every genre of music should be fairly compensated for their art. Thus far, radio is the only medium that fails to provide artists with fair compensation for the use of their music and we feel it is time for radio companies to join Satellite, Internet, and Cable music distributors in giving musical artists what they have worked so hard to earn.”

I’m sorry, Dionne but could we review your tax records for the past 45 years? I would suspect that a lot of money has flowed into your personal account primarily because of the FREE exposure and promotion you received from radio stations playing your songs in high rotations and on-air personalities reinforcing your brand by praising your talent. I’m sure that your contract with your record labels was designed more in their best interest than yours but that’s not radio’s fault. What all that FREE exposure on radio did for you, however, was increase audience awareness of your talent, increase your TV exposure, increase demand for your live performances and increase the fees you could demand for those performances. Seems to me that you profited nicely from all that FREE exposure.

And before someone posts the same lame comment about radio gets free use of our airwaves and we the people own the airwaves, it would be useful to remember that radio stations are granted short-term licenses to access those airwaves with the promise to operate in the public “interest, convenience and necessity”. Then, companies must invest millions of dollars in order to build their facilities, purchase the equipment, pay the electric bills (which can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year), pay the personnel (on-air staff, engineers, support staff, sales people, management), pay a large
percentage of gross advertising revenues to music rights companies (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC) and pay local, state and federal taxes. If times are good and the station does a good job of serving its listeners, it can earn a nice profit. If times are tight, it can lose money even if it’s doing a good job of serving its audience. So, saying that radio gets “free” use of our airwaves is a bit misleading.

It amazes me that the artists who support musicFIRST’s efforts don’t understand that if the RIAA gets its way and forces radio to start paying for the right to play songs then fewer stations will choose to continue playing music and those stations that do continue to play music will become more selective about what they play. If a station is paying for songs, its budget will dictate that it choose the most cost-effective tunes which will be obvious hits by artists with established track records. Consequently, playlists will become even tighter. I’m not sure that’s the goal that the musicians supporting musicFIRST are trying to accomplish.

Opponents of President Obama’s health care proposals need to come up with something as entertaining as this bit from The Daily Show:

Many artists at this year’s Grammy Awards signed a letter which the Recording Academy intends to send to Congress regarding the controversial Performance Rights Act. Daryl Friedman, a VP for the Recording Academy says: “In speaking to these talented artists, I heard three constant refrains. First, their concerns for background singers and musicians and older legacy artists who need to be fairly compensated; second, their willingness to sit down with radio to work out a solution; and third, if radio still refuses to talk, their commitment to take the fight to Washington.”

The Grammy Week January 2010 statement reads as follows:
“We, the undersigned artists, believe in the partnership between music and radio. We believe that artists (including the background singers and musicians and the great legacy artists of the past decades) deserve to be compensated when their music is used by radio. We support the Performance Rights Act because it is fair to radio and fair to artists. We encourage the radio industry to work with the music community and Congress to pass The Performance Rights Act. Together, we can create a true partnership that benefits radio, artists and musicians, and fans.”

Artists who signed the statement include Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, Tre Cool, Mike Dirnt and Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day, Stephen Stills, Kenny Aronoff, Sheryl Crow, Anthony Kiedis, Chad Smith and Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers, Phil Soussan, Jackson Browne, Don Was, Dave Matthews, Josh Groban, Travis Barker, Andrea Bocelli, Apl.de.ap, Taboo, Will.i.am and Fergie of Black Eyed Peas, Drake, Mary J Blige, Mick Fleetwood, Stevie Nicks and David Foster. Recording Academy President and CEO Neil Portnow says, “Standing right behind them are thousands of unknown and up-and-coming music makers who face the question of survival every day. In the coming decade, unless they can make a living at their craft, the quality and creativity of the music will be at risk.”

These artists have, of course, been brainwashed by the record industry spin machine. They don’t seem to understand that passage of the Performing Rights Act will result in fewer music-focused radio stations. Their assumption is that, since music-intensive radio has provided free commercials for their recorded music for the past 5 decades, stations will continue to do so. Perhaps they don’t realize that the reason radio stations became music-intensive was because music provided a mutually-beneficial symbiotic relationship for the radio and music industries: cost-effective programming for the stations and free promotion for the record labels. If the Performance Rights Act is passed, station management will decide that it’s more cost-effective to air talk programming, artists will receive less exposure and the record labels will continue to lose money.

Update: With Congress back in session, both the the National Association of Broadcasters and MusicFIRST have amped up their lobbying efforts. The NAB’s campaign is pretty innocuous, Stop The Performance Tax. MusicFIRST, however, has decided to play nasty. Here’s the logo for their site, PiggyRadio.com

Several years ago, I produced a half-hour public affairs program which aired on several different radio stations in New York State’s Capital Region on the Sunday night before Martin Luther King Day. While doing my research and listening to the speeches, I realized how much I didn’t know and appreciate about the man. Click on the picture below then click the play button to listen in.

Click to play

Saratoga Springs resident, Bruce Piasecki has consulted Toyota and HP about the capitalistic benefits of going green. Hear Bruce’s perspective in this interview on the Small Business Advocate podcast.

Click here to learn more about Bruce’s book.

In his book The Greatest Minds and Ideas Of All Time, Will Durant wrote that the Christian Age “seems to be approaching its close” while the Islamic religion is “still growing in numbers and strength”. I recall when the Soviet Union collapsed back in the early 1990s thinking that it seemed likely that the rivalry which replaced Democracy vs. Communism would be Christianity vs. Islam: western culture vs. eastern culture. It just seemed logical. Of course, the problems aren’t caused by the vast majority of those who follow the prophet Mohammed nor with the followers of Jesus Christ. It’s the whack job fanatics who create the crises we face today.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the U.S. faces some tough decisions. Do we commit more troops and possibly follow in the footsteps of the Russians and the British failures? Current polls indicate that the majority of Americans oppose sending in more troops. But as the world’s defender of freedom, do we have a moral responsibility to stayand help Afghanistan’s people thwart the Taliban?

Scott Simon, who was a journalist in Afghanistan eight years ago when the Taliban was in power and al Qaeda (or al-Qaida) used the country as its base of operations, makes some relevant points in this commentary http://bit.ly/SSimon

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and his cronies remain just over the border in Pakistan and remain a factor in the Afghanistan equation. In this interview with U.S. News & World Report, Howard Clark talks about How You Can Kill al Qaeda (in 3 easy steps) http://bit.ly/HClark

It seems pretty obvious that we should be cautious about committing too many American troops in Afghanistan and that the troops who are deployed there should be focused on thwarting the Taliban while building trust and credibility to win the hearts and minds of the people. Some of us will question if we can afford to do this but can we afford not to?

As a political moderate and independent, I have concerns that a Democratic majority will let their biases override good sense and will create rules and laws which restrict freedom of speech on broadcast radio outlets. They seem to have some misguided notion that corporate edicts dictate the content of talk radio when, in fact, conservative talk radio replaced moderate/liberal talk radio because conservatives tended to be more passionate about and loyal to their favorite talk shows than did moderates and liberals.

Those in Congress who advocate the return of the Fairness Doctrine don’t seem to understand that when radio was deregulated during the Reagan era and there was an explosion of new frequencies on the dial each station’s programming had to become more focused and predictable in order to survive. Power was transferred from the programmers to the listeners who were able to get what they wanted when they wanted it and knew where to find it on their radio dials. Now, with streaming, podcasts, Twitter and soon WiFi distribution of Internet radio, there are abundant opportunities to hear different opinions for those who want to hear them.

Obviously, there is a liberal audience available and NPR stations whose programming tends to be more politically progressive than commercial radio boast large and loyal audiences. In fact, the success of public radio with listeners with moderate and/or liberal political views might be a reason why commercial radio stations have been largely unsuccessful in cultivating a significant audience base of those listeners.