delete

[knunchucksammy]

Now there is an honest to god agreement.... well said... Matt

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]Ok, Matt. Point taken. We do agree that focus on the image is generally bad for the music quality. I really dislike it when people say they are impressed that Britney or N'Sync, Madonna or Janet Jackson use tracks because dancing is too rigorous. I say they should choose. If you're a singer, sing. If you're a dancer, dance. If you're a singer that wants to move, fine, so long as [i]you're still singing onstage.[/i] Faking a live performance is the low of lows, to me. It should be illegal for them to advertise these shams as "live performances". It should read "live appearance by..." Then the public would know there won't be a real performance.[/b][/quote]There is actually a class action suit by a music professor who has proof that this is so. He is trying to get a truth in advertising law, regarding concerts in Florida. I say right on, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. :thu:

[fantasticsound]

Thanks guys. Personally, I'd like to see radio have to accept direct payment for songs. I know, you're saying that's insane and could even create stations with shorter playlists than today. But think about it. The record companies would not have the ability to hide the amount of support they give to any particular artist. That would actually help artists who normally would realize they'd been left out of the money after months or years of their career going nowhere. Now they'd be able to track the label support. If it didn't match promises in their contracts, They would have grounds for a lawsuit. IMO, that would force the labels to more evenly distribute advertising and promotional dollars, giving more bands a better shot at getting heard. In turn, the radio stations would have to provide several hours of request shows, at least a 1/2 hour during peak listening hours, for the public to weigh in on what they want to hear. The thing is, you really can't legislate the latter part. The radio stations would have to oblige us, and that isn't going to happen. Anyone have any other good, great, completely insane ideas for the industry to survive, morph, recreate itself into a self sustaining entity that actually provides us with a better range of current music?

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]Thanks guys. Personally, I'd like to see radio have to accept direct payment for songs. That would actually help artists who normally would realize they'd been left out of the money after months or years of their career going nowhere. Now they'd be able to track the label support.[/b][/quote]As crazy as you think that idea sounds, it is actually how it works. Labels do directly pay to get songs on the radio. It used to be called payola, now it's called a consulting fee. Consultant fee's in the hundreds of thousand's of dollars are regularly paid to make every top ten hit, a top ten hit. Every nickel paid for this service is deducted from the artist's royalties. It is not unheard of for an artist to owe the label almost a million bucks for promotional costs. Except for a few very high tier artists. This is how it's done. How do you like it now? :D

[knunchucksammy]

Interesting... I think the only idea that I can hop on the band wagon with is the idea of artists forming a union. It has been rumored in issues of Rolling Stones and like materials and would allow artists (or music that writes actual artistic music) to get heard, and have a chance to make a living.... If there are any real problems with this maybe you guys can lay them out... it just sounds good. Even if the idea doesn't work as planned it could at least create a competitive rival in the current industry. It would almost be like the conception of Mac, in the computer world - only much later on the time line... At the very least, it can stir the pot. Matt

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]As crazy as you think that idea sounds, it is actually how it works. Labels do directly pay to get songs on the radio. It used to be called payola, now it's called a consulting fee.[/b][/quote]Sorry, Jotown. Let me clarify my idea. I already knew labels pay for airplay, not to mention choice space on retailers' shelves, etc. What I'm saying is, no more blank listed consulting fees. Each song from any artist will be listed, like a retail receipt, for any artist to see. That way, they can directly track the airplay of their songs by following the money trail. Of course, the record labels will fight this tooth and nail. They've used shoddy accounting to screw artists out of royalties for many years. Their books are as cooked as Enron's were, except in this case, only [i]their clients[/i] are getting screwed! :rolleyes: So they pay, say, $2 for every play of band x's song (outside of the request times.) Now band x should have access (it would have to be set up in their recording contract) to view EXACTLY how much the label paid for the promotion that's eating into their royalties. Can you imagine what the labels would do if they were held accountable for their practices? If we can make it work for the record industry, maybe we could use the same model to demand honesty and responsibility from our [i]legislators[/i] when they spend our money! Yeoww... now there's a concept! :D