Debating the Future of Music

I spent most of Monday in an auditorium at George Washington University, attending the Future of Music Coalition's annual policy summit. This gathering is meant to give musicians--as opposed to the recording industry at large--a chance to mull over the state of the business.

Because life isn't always too kind to independent musicians, the FMC conference can be a bit of an airing of grievances, with two recurring themes: Nobody plays us, nobody pays us.

That is, for all the changes in the music industry since the first FMC summit in 2001, indie artists still find that commercial radio and other forms of mass-market media ignore them, with the result that it continues to be difficult to make a living--not get rich, but earn enough for a decent middle-class lifestyle--in this line of work.

Some highlights from yesterday's sessions:

* How unbalanced is radio these days? At a panel discussion early in the afternoon, Rich Bengloff, president of the American Association of Independent Music, cited figures gathered by the performance-rights organization SoundExchange: In 2006, 37 percent of the songs played on "non-terrestrial" radio--essentially, satellite and Internet--came from independent artists. On AM and FM, the figure was below 10 percent, Bengloff said.

* Terrestrial radio doesn't seem likely to get much better anytime soon. Low-power FM awaits Congressional action to make these neighborhood-based stations possible in more cities. HD Radio isn't being held back by any legislative inaction, but faces its own relevancy issues: When a speaker asked a roomful of more than 70 music-biz types if any of them owned an HD Radio, I saw only 2 hands go up.

* These days, though, musicians also have to watch out for unplanned exposure. Singer/songwriter Lady Miss Kier--whom readers of a certain age may remember from the group Deee-Lite--said she needed to get her new album for sale online because fans keep recording her live shows with cameraphones and posting clips on YouTube.

* In a brief keynote speech, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) blasted media consolidation and what he called the Federal Communications Commission's complacency about it. He cited a North Dakota town with six radio stations, all owned by one firm: "Why on Earth would the FCC, if it wasn't dead from the neck up, let one company buy all the radio stations in one town?" Dorgan followed: "That's not what you and I intended when we gave away the public airwaves for free."

* I've written before about how effective Internet radio can be at helping listeners find new music--and how threatened Internet broadcasters are by the steep royalty payments current laws require them to make to musicians. Both sides of that debate surfaced at a discussion late in the afternoon. Everybody agreed on the merits of compensating musicians for the public use of their work--not just on the Web and satellite radio, but on AM and FM too. But they disagreed sharply on whether the current system did the job satisfactorily. To judge from the questions directed at SoundExchange executive director John Simson, that organization has burned up a lot of credibility by pushing so consistently for high royalty rates for Webcast radio.

* Figuring out the finer points of copyright law as applied to digital music can exhaust even those who have spent decades mastering it. At a talk after lunch, Marybeth Peters, the Library of Congress's ~~Reporter~~ Register of Copyrights since 1994, said, "Today, copyright law reads like the tax code, and there are sections that are incomprehensible to most people and difficult to me." Later in the chat, Peters expressed her approval of one of the laws that make digital copyright such a mess--the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. She also admitted that she doesn't own a home computer or DVD player.

* The last panel discussion of the day focused on net neutrality, and included one of the most concise definitions of that argument. Columbia University law professor Tim Wu said the point of net neutrality--in which Internet providers would be legally required not to discriminate against particular types or sources of Internet traffic--was "to save the Internet from being like commercial radio."

* I've wondered before whether an interactive-music service ever could replace a collection of music that you actually own. My own hunch is not--but at a reception that closed out yesterday's sessions, FMC deputy director Kristin Thomson told me that she and her husband have left all their records and CDs in boxes in the basement. Instead, she said they subscribe to Pandora and Rhapsody, using a Sonos music system to broadcast those Internet sources throughout their house. (Note that Rhapsody, unlike Pandora, lets you cue up a specific track instead of only asking for songs from a particular genre of music.)

Would you like to defend commercial radio? What problems do you see with the way new music finds its way to your ears? The comments are waiting for your input...

By Rob Pegoraro | September 18, 2007; 10:07 AM ET | Category: Music
Previous: Shedding Some Light on Silverlight | Next: Google Unwraps Presentations

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.

I started a rant about radio, but because Radio Is Dead, I'll go off on something else. Artists need to get paid, I think we all agree on that. Unfortunately we can all easily download music without paying. I believe that the artists need to embrace this and do a straight-up pitch for money, NPR style. There are two points to this:

1) Artists need to make their music easily available
2) Artists need to beat home the idea that if you like the music you should pay for it (just like NPR)

Posted by: Gman | September 18, 2007 10:28 AM

Radio as we know it is dead; that is radio being transmitted over the airwaves. However, radio music along with podcasts will now take it's place over the Internet and via WiFi.

With MP3 files and players (even now in radio/CD players) there is no longer the need for airwave transmission of music. News, weather and alerts are still viable for over the air transmissions.

Posted by: Roy Wagner | September 18, 2007 10:57 AM

Remember that joke in Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones is showing Will Smith alien technology, and he holds up the tiny CD and says, "This means I'm going to have to buy the White Album again soon"? I laughed and laughed at that, because it seemed so savvy and spot-on. Now? Not so much. That was, what, 1998? Never guessed that the future of music wouldn't be on tinier and tinier discs but on the interwebs.

Posted by: Ronnie | September 18, 2007 12:04 PM

Rob,

Whatever happened to any follow-ups to your previous article on HD Radio?

"The FCC Tunes Into HD Radio-And May Turn Off Distant AM"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2007/03/the_fcc_greenlights_hd_radio_n.html

Yesterday, Audio Graphics pretty-much wrote-off HD Radio - fantastic:

"HD Radio: Skepticism is Spreading"

"Could the cracks in the HD Radio picture be starting to show? Is there a change underway in the mindset of radio industry execs that HD Radio - as it is being positioned - is not the answer to radio's future? There are signs that this facade may be coming to a close... The writing has been on the wall for HD Radio since its inception, reinforced through this Audio Graphics polling of readers."

http://www.audiographics.com/agd/091707-1.htm

HD Radio is just a complete give-away of our free airways to iBiquity, but this farce is coming to and end!

Posted by: Greg | September 18, 2007 12:19 PM

music as a medium just doesn't have a lot of value. Even without stealing, it is a supply/demand thing. The supply is almost overwhelming. If you want to make money in music, you have to be entertaining enough for people to want to pay to see you live. That is hard - there is a lot of competition.

Posted by: slar | September 18, 2007 12:57 PM

Radio has been on the decline ever since ownership rules were relaxed, creating broadcasting monoliths like Clear Channel, and Infinity Broadcasting, who have homogenized radio programming into something with all the variety and excitement of a Hostess Twinkie. Unfortunately for the Indie artists, money is the only thing that talks in radio these days. Radio execs want safe, predictable music that all pretty much sounds the same and will deliver a consistent group of listeners.

HD Radio, for all of its promise, was dead on arrival. Broadcasters wasted all of their energy fighting satellite and internet radio rather than promoting HD as the next big thing. Add to that the lack of reasonably priced HD-capable radios (especially for cars) and you have a business formula for failure. In the meantime, the UK is enjoying a resurgence in radio thanks to a well orchestrated move to digital radio.

U.S. Radio, you have become your own worst enemy.

Posted by: The Navigator | September 18, 2007 01:05 PM

I knew radio was dead years ago when I first subscribed to XM, then subsequently to Sirius for Howard Stern programming. The fact that I can listen to music in the genre that I enjoy WITHOUT commercial interruption is invaluable to me. The offerings of Stern, the NFL, INDIE ROCK, as well as news, comedy, sports all kick the ass of whatever the local station plays. Music on regular radio is horrible. It all sounds the same to me. There is no more talent out there as everything sounds over produced. I agree with the previous poster that bands make money from touring, but they have got to put on a show that we're willing to pay for. I'm also now glad that one can buy individual tracks of an album instead of forking over $17-$18 for a CD with one or two good songs, with the rest being CRAP.

Long live satellite radio. HD-Radio?? Puhleeze.

Posted by: H.C.D. | September 18, 2007 02:59 PM

Because I am fortunate enough to be able to listen to music at work, I am a devotee of Internet Radio. I am a classical music listener, with a taste for mellifluous Goth and ambient. So, I listen to Princeton University's WPRB in the morning, for which I will soon be paying; to WNYC's wnyc2 24/7/365 music stream, where I am a paying member;to about eight Live365 streams, post-classical and Goth, all of which I support financially with two subscriptions and private donations; and finally to Hearts of Space where I pay for two subscriptions.

I am delighted to be paying directly for what I want instead of enduring commercials for things that I do not want to buy to hear music, most of which I will not like.

Posted by: Richard Mitnick | September 18, 2007 04:21 PM

I like radio; I like an actual person selecting the songs I'm about to hear, and telling me who I just heard. Which bears no resemblance to big commercial radio -- I like the small independent commercial-free stations, the ones that actually introduce you to these independent artists who are out there producing great work.

Right now it's very hard for stations like that to start up in large cities like DC, because urban areas are barred from low power FM (unless the law changes, as Rob notes). Even in the laws change, in some areas all available frequencies are already taken up by translator stations transmitting distant programming.

If what I'm saying means something to you, you can get involved through http://prometheusradio.org/ and http://www.stopbigmedia.com/

Posted by: Tony | September 18, 2007 05:21 PM

Twenty-somethings would rather watch a guy shoot a bottle rocket out of his arse on YouTube than listen to music on any format. Music is in big, big trouble when the young are indifferent to it.

This guy is spot on:

http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/

Posted by: Count of Monte Cristo | September 18, 2007 06:03 PM

The future of music, radio and print media are all the same. The model is this:

Magazine/Lifestyle-Based Niche Socially-Networked Feedback-Driven Interactive Multi-Media Stations.

Can anyone out there argue this model? No.

People want what they're into, and they're tired of generic crud. If you could tune into USAToday.FM, WashingtonPost.FM, Biker.FM, Maxim.FM, Cosmopolitan.FM or Smithsonian.FM, would you?

What are you into? There will soon be a radio station (magazine based) to satisfy your every desire (obsession).

P.S. If the Washington Post wants to produce WashingtonPost.FM for readers to busy to read, please email me g.charlsen@yahoo.com

i.FM Radio Network owns the .FM rights to most iconic publications.

Posted by: i.FM Radio Network | September 19, 2007 05:38 AM

I still do not get the argument that the Internet could turn into "commercial radio" or even "cable TV." Heck, cable has been getting more and more like the Internet.

I consult for the Hands Off coalition (http://handsoff.org), which most certainly supports an open Internet, but we're very skeptical of professor Wu's demand for regulations. His call to action for net neutrality laws hasn't gone anywhere, so in the last several months he's turned instead to "wireless net neutrality." Which is a strange way to take the argument, since there is even more competition at the wireless level than the broadband market.

Rob, I enjoy your columns quite a bit, and would be interested to see you take a crack at it. Not to influence you too much, but I would hope you lean closer to Andrew Kantor's view of it:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-06-15-net-neutrality-revisited_x.htm

Posted by: HOTI Dave | September 19, 2007 10:39 AM

Would you like to defend commercial radio? What problems do you see with the way new music finds its way to your ears? The comments are waiting for your input...

... okay, I'll respond.

I am a radio programmer / on-air announcer / dj. I currently volunteer my services for a public, non-commercial, radio station in a college town of 120+,000 people, in a market area of over 300,000. I have been doing radio since the early/mid-seventies, and professionally (paid) since 1978.

Radio can still be relevant. It can especially be relevant to us baby-boomers, who essentially created rock, and rock radio. I was 15 in 1970. I have grown to HATE, HATE, HATE commercial classic-rock radio. I don't need to keep hearing the same songs, by the same artists, from the same records, those that I have programmed for a life-time now. Has anyone recognized that Eric Clapton, J.J. Cale, Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, and other great artists are still alive? Has anyone noticed that there's LOTS and LOTS of new and old undiscovered music out there that we baby boomers would and do actually like??

Baby-boomers 45-54 make up 2/3 of MY Generation. As a generation, we're hip, educated, now growing out of raising kids to becoming grandparents -- have money to spend, enjoy arts and leisure and travel ... and will buy new music if it meets our sensitvities. We will also continue to support radio in ways that our kids don't and can't understand. God knows, I have five kids and six grandkids today.

Radio needs to meet the WANTS and DESIRES of we who created it to begin with ... we fueled the early rock revolution. What makes anyone think we're not relevant any longer? Who listens to radio today? My friends do. They're all boomers ...

Who is running out to buy the new Mark Knopfler? My friends. Steve Earle is now coming up on 53 .. how bout Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, and other boomer era artists?

Radio needs to stop pretending we don't exist and if they do recognize we exist they need to stop treating us like we're stuck in the past. It's not the songs that matter folks - it's the content between the songs.

We want local content. We want relevant entertainment and lifestyle banter .. I want to hear discussions about our health issues; not discussions about the latest Britney Spears debacle. We want to hear about the health of our investments, as it relates to us. We want to hear about local issues that affect our daily lives. We want to hear about where to travel that's cool (and affordable).

Radio isn't dead --- but the FCC, in all its wisdom has seen to it that companies like Entercom, Clear Channel, Regent, etc can own all the media in one town, make it impossible for boomer entrepeneurs to buy into this older technology -- made it too expensive to advertise on for local business owners ...

.. speaking of which. Want a good reason why small local business owners suffer most? The cost of advertising on corporately owned, over leveraged, over priced radio, tv, and print media.

Ok .. I'm done with my rant, thank you.

Posted by: Chris | September 19, 2007 10:58 AM

Correction on Title of Marybeth Peters

When you click on the link for her name you see in the first sentence "Marybeth Peters has served as the United States Register of Copyrights since August 7, 1994." that she is the "Register" of Copyrights and not the "Reporter" of Copyrights. See also

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2006/message.pdf
where there is a photo of her and the proper title.

Posted by: Ed | September 19, 2007 01:37 PM

I do some work with NAB and I find it really interesting that Dorgan has such a reactionary opinion about media ownership. The case he's talking about, where a corporation purchased several radio stations, was in Minot, N.D. But it's famous because it proved that corporate ownership actually leads to more diversity, not less.

When a market is fragmented between six stations, each one will play the most profitable content and try to put the others out of business. This results in stations broadcasting the most popular, homogenized formats. But when those stations are brought into one corporate family, they diversify their content as there isn't the need to compete against one another.

Jack Shafer at Slate wrote a great article about it here: http://www.slate.com/id/2157395/pagenum/all/

Posted by: Chinook | September 19, 2007 05:02 PM

Replies in no particular order:

Ed: Thanks for the reporting; the correct title appears now.

Chinook: So we should back local media monopolies *because* they will lead to greater diversity? I'd like to know how many readers are convinced by that logic.

HOTI Dave: Nice job trying to change the subject. People arguing for wireless net neutrality aren't arguing that there isn't enough competition in the wireless business, they're arguing--correctly--that carriers discriminate against certain kinds of content. Have you read the terms of service for any mobile-broadband plans lately?

Ronnie: Great quote from MiB. Of course, Tommy Lee Jones's character wouldn't have to worry about re-buying the White Album just yet--the Beatles would first need 20 years to acknowledge the new technology.

Richard Mitnick: Glad to hear you're a PRB fan. I remember barely being able to get its signal growing up in northern Jersey--I think I had to face in one direction in my room to tune into it on my Walkman--and wishing there was a station like that a little closer to my home. (I did kinda grow up in the sticks :)

- RP

Posted by: Rob Pegoraro | September 19, 2007 07:40 PM

The Denver Public Library and other big city libraries provide a wealth of free (supported by tax $) music. You can create playlists for revisiting but downloads cost.

DPL also provides a catalog of downdloadable audio E-books which become inaccessable after 3 weeks. The catalog is expanding as more publishers are creating books in E-formats.

BTW. What's a "radio?"

Posted by: J. Dumas | September 21, 2007 10:59 AM

Debating the Future of Music

Comments

Post a Comment