I think that the quality of music in America has very little to do with radio, especially these days. Frankly, places like soulstrut, youtube or soulsides are doing a lot to connect people with (good) music. Most artists (that I like) never made a cent off of radio. So what does that say?
Part of the licensing out of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES again is no payola.
I think this is an unreasonable and illogical burden, that is my point. Keeping motorheads out of my garages is a good idea because they drive away my nice rent paying apt tenants, which would be a serious problem.
This is my recap of the arguments people have made against payola.
The airwaves belong to the people. The Gov't has a compelling interest in letting artists spread their wings, makeing sure people are able to hear a lot of different kinds of music (though we know that monopoly corporate ownership is the real culprit in narrowing listener choice) and letting us know when someone is paying to play their music. I this respectfully, "Do you guys really think these are strong arguments?"
And I agree that alot of regulations and laws like the Payola laws don't have as much of an effect as they did when they were created. But if you want a more recent comparison, look at the recent push by corporations to pass Internet Regulations such as the one (name escapes me) to allow companies to charge websites in order to have their site load faster. Which is really not fair and would help to kill freedom that the internet has created. With a regulation like that I am pretty sure alot of companies and sites that people/users have made popular would not even exist if they were bogged down by loading fees on top of every other expense.
And I agree that alot of regulations and laws like the Payola laws don't have as much of an effect as they did when they were created. But if you want a more recent comparison, look at the recent push by corporations to pass Internet Regulations such as the one (name escapes me) to allow companies to charge websites in order to have their site load faster. Which is really not fair and would help to kill freedom that the internet has created. With a regulation like that I am pretty sure alot of companies and sites that people/users have made popular would not even exist if they were bogged down by loading fees on top of every other expense.
And I agree that there is a very compelling public interest in not restricting the use of internet in this manner. However, this affects the multitudes in the pocket book and not in some vaguely define "aesthetic"/artistic rhetoric. Can we end this thread now?
I still don't understand what ur arguing about. It's not illegal to pay to have your song played. It just has to be disclosed. And you have a problem with that??
I still don't understand what ur arguing about. It's not illegal to pay to have your song played. It just has to be disclosed. And you have a problem with that??
No, what I think Wu is arguing is that he can't see that anyone has been harmed by Payola and therefore asks why this is such a big deal. He's said that given that radio is a market in a capitalism system, what is the matter with people paying to have their music played, and if that means that people with more money get played more than big deal. Also, who is harmed by the fact that some companies will get their songs played more often than others if this is in fact the process?
Did I get that right Wu?
I think the response has been that radio is not in fact, a regular market in America. Rather that is part of the public domain, and therefore has tighter regulations and a different set of rules than other markets in a capitalist system. In theory, it's suppose to serve the public and therefore not big companies with big money to push their products onto the listening public. Of course, in practice that's who it actually is on commercial radio.
There's also been the argument over fairness where the big companies get all the spins and the little guy gets left out.
call me stubborn and unrealistic but i doubt anything will change on ANY CLEAR channel radio station
like all the sudden they will stop playing those 10 led zep tunes? or those 10 floyd joints 5 eric claptons 2 kinks 6 van halen 7 springsteens argggghhhhhhhhh pulls out hair
call me stubborn and unrealistic but i doubt anything will change on ANY CLEAR channel radio station
like all the sudden they will stop playing those 10 led zep tunes? or those 10 floyd joints 5 eric claptons 2 kinks 6 van halen 7 springsteens argggghhhhhhhhh pulls out hair
And the only two songs James Brown ever sang: Papa's Got A Brand New Bag and I Got You (I Feel Good). Boy, what a 2-sider THAT single was. Whatever became of that guy?
call me stubborn and unrealistic but i doubt anything will change on ANY CLEAR channel radio station
like all the sudden they will stop playing those 10 led zep tunes? or those 10 floyd joints 5 eric claptons 2 kinks 6 van halen 7 springsteens argggghhhhhhhhh pulls out hair
Is there really payola for classic rock? Are the labels still pushing these albums? I always thought payola was mainly for top 40.
call me stubborn and unrealistic but i doubt anything will change on ANY CLEAR channel radio station
like all the sudden they will stop playing those 10 led zep tunes? or those 10 floyd joints 5 eric claptons 2 kinks 6 van halen 7 springsteens argggghhhhhhhhh pulls out hair
Is there really payola for classic rock? Are the labels still pushing these albums? I always thought payola was mainly for top 40.
Yeah, the last specific case of Payola that I heard about was Sony or someone pushing Jennifer Lopez's album. They gave all kinds of gifts and money to DJs in big cities to play her singles including vacations, etc.
Comments
I think this is an unreasonable and illogical burden, that is my point. Keeping motorheads out of my garages is a good idea because they drive away my nice rent paying apt tenants, which would be a serious problem.
This is my recap of the arguments people have made against payola.
The airwaves belong to the people. The Gov't has a compelling interest in letting artists spread their wings, makeing sure people are able to hear a lot of different kinds of music (though we know that monopoly corporate ownership is the real culprit in narrowing listener choice) and letting us know when someone is paying to play their music. I this respectfully, "Do you guys really think these are strong arguments?"
And I agree that there is a very compelling public interest in not restricting the use of internet in this manner. However, this affects the multitudes in the pocket book and not in some vaguely define "aesthetic"/artistic rhetoric. Can we end this thread now?
No, what I think Wu is arguing is that he can't see that anyone has been harmed by Payola and therefore asks why this is such a big deal. He's said that given that radio is a market in a capitalism system, what is the matter with people paying to have their music played, and if that means that people with more money get played more than big deal. Also, who is harmed by the fact that some companies will get their songs played more often than others if this is in fact the process?
Did I get that right Wu?
I think the response has been that radio is not in fact, a regular market in America. Rather that is part of the public domain, and therefore has tighter regulations and a different set of rules than other markets in a capitalist system. In theory, it's suppose to serve the public and therefore not big companies with big money to push their products onto the listening public. Of course, in practice that's who it actually is on commercial radio.
There's also been the argument over fairness where the big companies get all the spins and the little guy gets left out.
Am I off in these summaries?
like all the sudden they will stop playing those 10 led zep tunes?
or those 10 floyd joints
5 eric claptons
2 kinks
6 van halen
7 springsteens
argggghhhhhhhhh
pulls out hair
And the only two songs James Brown ever sang: Papa's Got A Brand New Bag and I Got You (I Feel Good). Boy, what a 2-sider THAT single was. Whatever became of that guy?
Is there really payola for classic rock? Are the labels still pushing these albums? I always thought payola was mainly for top 40.
Yeah, the last specific case of Payola that I heard about was Sony or someone pushing Jennifer Lopez's album. They gave all kinds of gifts and money to DJs in big cities to play her singles including vacations, etc.