Nancy Sinatra and the Ignorant Masses by George Ziemann -- August 4, 2009 In yesterday's New York Times, Nancy Sinatra makes an argument for artist royalties from radio, a plea timed to coincide with a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the subject. Judging from the comments, the public is still completely ignorant about this issue. Here's the beginning of Sinatra's opinion: "WHEN I hear great American standards on the radio, I think of all the songwriters, artists and musicians whom my father, brother and I have worked with over the years. It reminds me that every recording has two parts, the composition and the performance. It also reminds me how many wonderful artists and musicians have not been paid fairly for their work. "Songwriters and publishers are paid when their tunes are played on the radio, but none of the artists or musicians who bring the music to life receive even a penny. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing today on legislation that will right this wrong, which dates back to the early days of sound recordings. "My father, Frank Sinatra, and singers like Tony Bennett, Bing Crosby and Perry Como fought for years for performance royalties from radio stations, arguing it was unfair that performers are not paid and citing cases like Helen Forrest that show the harsh side of this injustice. "Helen was one of the most gifted singers of the 1940s. Known as the 'Voice of the Name Bands,' she had hits like 'I Cried for You' and 'I Had the Craziest Dream.' Sadly, Helen spent her last years practically destitute because she received nothing when her songs were played on the radio." This is not radio's fault. First of all, the Constitution only asserts protection for the "authors and creators." The 1896 version of copyright law prohibited the performance of a song by anyone other than the artist. Venue licensing came a decade later, which permitted others to perform works in exchange for a fee, probably when people started to realize that some songwriters just aren't very good singers. Frank Sinatra, and singers like Tony Bennett, Bing Crosby and Perry Como fought for years for performance royalties from radio stations because they never wrote a fucking song. Neither did Elvis. The U.S. copyright laws were not designed to protect them. They relied on songwriters, who wouldn't have lined up to offer them songs were it not for the pennies per copy they would receive. Yes, Helen Forrest died almost destitute, but so will the Bay City Rollers -- and Sony has $60 or $80 million somewhere that belongs to them. Sam Moore (of Sam and Dave) thought he had reached retirement age, only to find out that his record label had neglected to report the royalties he had earned over his career, leaving his pension fund empty. Noel Redding, bassist for the Jimi Henrix Experience (and several other iterations), died destitute, but it wasn't radio's fault. Radio supported the music Redding played on almost from day one and still does. If it hadn't, none of us would know who he is. Do you know who wrote their first hit, "Hey Joe"? Probably not. That's why he's the one who gets paid. He's not out playing the song. Musicians and singers get paid according to the terms of their contract. Theoretically. But the record labels aren't very good at math. That's why they die destitute. Gaming the System My greatest argument against giving a royalty performance for artists is that the record labels will cheat the system for profit. As one of the few astute readers in the comments of the NYTimes article pointed out, the great hypocrisy of it all is that the record labels been paying radio for decades to play their songs. This was okay while they were selling tons of CDs, but now that everyone has replaced their vinyl collection, the record companies have thoroughly pissed off most music fans and then trimmed their artist rosters down to two genres, suddenly sales are down. Obviously, this is all the fault of radio, which now has no promotional value whatsoever, "is making money off the backs of artists," so the labels need radio to pay them now. More from Ms. Sinatra: "This fight isn't just about featured artists. There are thousands of background singers and session musicians who deserve to be paid for their work, too." This is a lame argument. If the royalty scheme used by SoundExchange is implemented, the record labels get half, the "featured artist" gets 45% and everyone else involved (backup singers, session players) get to split a whopping 5%, provided you know about it, and know where to ask -- little effort is made to contact the artists, in which case SoundExchage gets to keep it. Unless you're Leland Sklar, this probably won't add up to much, either. If you played in an orchestra backing Frank Sinatra, you're going to share that 5% with 30 other people, assuming it still gets airplay. "Singers and musicians, as much as songwriters, create something when they perform - and we should make sure all artists are paid when their creations are heard on the radio." While I totally agree with the first half of that statement, but the second half is ludicrous and has no true logic behind it. Should we charge people walking by a stadium while a concert is in progress? What about the people who call to complain that they can hear it from their house? In England, they've asked people to pay a fee for having their radio loud enough that others could hear it. The idea that somehow a commercially released piece of music should somehow collect revenue from every pair of ears it falls into is a false entitlement that the record industry has bestowed upon itself. First you have to let me hear it enough to like it. Payola actually makes more sense. Pay for airtime, get exposure, sell more records, more concert tickets and merchandise. And, despite payola being illegal and being busted for it just a couple of years ago, payola hasn't stopped. The FCC mandated exposure for local, independent music last year. Has anyone heard a local band on the radio this year? The labels still own the airwaves. A performance royalty would be like a payola rebate. The Alternatives The broadcasters could offer some sort of collaborative agreement wherein there is no royalty, but artists can put themselves on a blacklist so that radio doesn't play their music. The broadcasters could make agreements with artists willing to pass on the royalties because they think maybe it helps if people can actually hear your music instead of being sued for trying to. I would happily sign up for this. A combination of those two options is a repeat of 1940, when BMI appeared. Start a performing rights organization for performers who want to be on the radio, but can't afford the payola or soul-selling (record contract) currently required. The obvious problem with all three of these possibilities is that the record labels control the great majority of all sound recording copyrights, not the performers themselves. And I'm not at all sure how this would work out for artists whose label copyrighted their music as "work for hire." The obvious problem with the royalty idea is that it will discourage localization and diversity, encourage more media consolidation and fewer individual voices. This is supposed to be important to the FCC, but even they won't do anything to correct it. The record labels will keep buying their chart positions and no one else will be invited to the party. There's more diversity on Guitar Hero than local radio and I'm in the 5th or 6th largest city in the country. The song remains the same. And the record labels would rather drive radio to complete extinction than admit they're being greedy. Here's what definitely won't happen: Disc jockeys who know something about the music and share it with the audience, as opposed to empty-headed djs making prank phone calls. Fewer commercials. Local bands on local radio. An entire generation of budding rock stars has been deprived of the experience of working at the TV store and hearing their song on the radio for the first time. The Senate will probably pass this royalty, mostly because they've all been well paid by the entertainment industry, and they always fall for the "Parade of Stars" that accompanies these sort of things. If they want to do something to protect the artists, they should look into the contractural rape that most artists agree to (preferably when young, in an altered state and with no lawyers present), and the opaque accounting practices that have been used successfully over the last 50 years to keep money owed to artists as long as legally possible -- and then longer if the artist doesn't audit them. Unless that is changed, "starving artists" will continue to be a permanent entry on every record label's to-do list.