Does Radio Promote Music or Does Music Promote Radio?

TRUE or FALSE: "Just as Radio Promotes Music, Music Promotes Radio"-- Herbie Hancock

On Tuesday, March 10, 2009, Smashing Pumpkins lead singer Billy Corgan testified before the House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 848, "The Performance Rights Act." Corgan and the other witnesses attempted to shed light on the above quote, as they made their cases as to why a new performance right is needed (or why one is not necessary). The full hearing webcast can be viewed on the Smashing Pumpkins Website at: http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/.

Speaking along with Mitch Bainwol, Chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA"), Corgan testified on behalf of the MusicFirst Coalition, which represents various artists, labels and managers. Both witnesses spoke in favor of H.R. 848, explaining that the Act would end the unfair exemption that broadcasters receive (they currently do not have to pay artists any royalties) for over-the-air broadcasts. Steve Newberry spoke on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters, and urged Congress to cosinder how the evolution of advanced technologies has undermined the financial position of the four major record labels. He explained that broadcasters have continued to do their job in a highly competitive environment, and touted the benefits of airplay as a promotional tool in the recording industry.

On the one hand: The lack of a performance right for musicians that allows them to profit from the use of their work seems contrary to the original purpose of copyright rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The airwaves constitute the most common forum for the transmission of music, and it seems that allowing musicians to collect royalties would benefit new and emerging artists. Perhaps a sliding scale could be created with regard to the amount of royalties a given artist may collect based on the artist's popularity, the number of times a particular song may be played, and the size of the actual broadcaster. It seems appropriate, at first glance, that a flat exemption be provided to the smallest stations and religious organizations...but small stations may become top 40 stations via the profit advantage, because they will have free access to the most popular songs, while the big guys will be footing the bill.

On the other hand: On the flip side, however, let's not forget that radio stations do not charge their listeners either-- would the imposition of a performance right kill music? Would fewer people listen to the radio? (I know I would if I was forced to pay, Comcast already has me over a barrel for tv service). Why was this argument not raised during the height of radio, during the 50's and 60's when it was mainly being used to promote new records? Aren't these artists tired from their last fight against Napster? I'm curious.

Perhaps a middle ground can be found-- perhaps contracts can be renegotiated where certain songs are paid for-- but be prepared, this will massively change the way radio operates...there is a huge value to playing unusual music, the non-popular songs, which stations will not likely pay for...this may be the unofficial rise of the avant garde approach to radio. Maybe

I won't have to listen to Lady GaGa and her "Poker Face" anyomore. Maybe I'll read more.