Home Videos Photos

Money Grubbing

| Filed under: Music Minute

franksinatra.jpg

Frank Sinatra's daughter, Nancy, walked her boots to DC and kicked up a storm.

The LA Times reports that on Wednesday, Nancy headlined a House subcommittee hearing, urging lawmakers to force broadcast radio stations to pay royalties to performers and record companies when the stations air their songs.

Currently, it's only composers and songwriters who get royalties from radio stations.

Singers and musicians who perform those songs, along with the labels that own the recordings, get nothing.

Old Blue Eyes led a similar charge in the 80's, but failed.

Nancy said, "It's not about me. It's not about my dad. Certainly, Dad wasn't fighting for this because he needed more money. We are in search of fairness."

We'd respect her more if she told the truth!

Of course it's about money!!!!!!!

When is anything never about the money?

With the shit state of music these days we wouldn't be surprised if the record labels were egging Nancy along.

Maybe some 'artists' should start writing their own music or at least take a more active role it in????

However, according to the report, traditional broadcast radio stations, struggling themselves against satellite radio and iPods, have launched an intense counteroffensive. The National Assn. of Broadcasters has lined up a majority of House members behind a separate bill declaring a performance royalty would hurt local radio stations. The group released a report this week saying that the free promotion from radio airplay generates $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion in music sales each year.

Some musicians and some lawmakers say the system has been broken for years. Some noted that Bo Diddley, the rock legend who died this month, had to keep touring into his 70s because he received no money from the airplay his recordings got on the radio.

The bill Sinatra's helping to advance is supposedly designed to fix a glaring inequity. Legislation would remove the exemption for over-the-air radio stations and have a panel of copyright judges set the rates, probably a small percentage of revenue. Stations, with gross revenues less than $1.25 million a year, would play a flat $5,000 annual fee.

This sounds VERY complicated for the radio stations!

Do you really want to DISCOURAGE them from playing your music???

Musicians and record companies feel they have fairness on their side because performance royalties now are paid by satellite, cable music channels and Internet radio.

[Image via WENN.]

Nicki Minaj Isn't The Only One! These Pop Stars Sampled Classic Hits In Their Songs Too!
Celebrities Rapping!
Hollywood’s Elite Club Of Celebrity Triple Threats!
The Naughtiest Cover Art!
Can You Guess The Pop Diva Based On Their Early 2000s Outfit?
The 5 Seconds Of Summer's Hottest Pics! From Shirtless To Full-On Naked!
Email this  »

50 comments to “Money Grubbing”

  1. Meg says – reply to this


    1

    first? second?

  2. Shann says – reply to this


    2

    first bitches!!! hahaha

  3. ivan says – reply to this


    3

    gross

  4. TehDe says – reply to this


    4

    Does that money grubbing whore realize that in the long run this will only hurt independent artists? Did ever occur to her that shit like this is one of the reasons that most radio stations have playlists that are only 10-15 songs?

  5. t says – reply to this


    5

    Sad!

  6. Amy says – reply to this


    6

    Bad idea. Go after the record companies to get that money Nance. Not the radio stations. Pushing the radio stations to hand out more money is going to result in more commercials and less music. bad, bad, bad!!

  7. oliol says – reply to this


    7

    hmmmmm :)

  8. Rash says – reply to this


    8

    I wish they would do that,
    but only with 60's music, so I
    would never again have to hear
    that tired old hippie music on the
    radio again, enough is enough already!
    .
    NEWSFLASH: The sixty's is OVER!!!
    Get over it. Rash Manly

  9. truth says – reply to this


    9

    If they want to be paid they should only let satellite radio have access to their music. I can understand if they want cable tv to pay for playing music on the radio channels. On open air waves we will only hear what is cheapest to play. what do you think perez???

  10. b says – reply to this


    10

    Not first :)

  11. RL says – reply to this


    11

    Video didn't kill the radio star, Sinatra did.

  12. xFVoc says – reply to this


    12

    Who can blame the vocalists for trying to broker a better deal? They are the ones who sell the song. It HAS been broken for years, but the folks with the money have the power to record, promote or not record or promote that vocalist. It's too bad the inequity wasn't addressed at the beginning. I doubt writers or labels would be willing to give up even a small percentage to singers at this point. Broker a better deal from the beginning if you can swing it, or as Perez says, try writing your own songs if you have the ability.

  13. Nick says – reply to this


    13

    "Maybe some 'artists' should start writing their own music or at least take a more active role it in????"

    Perez.

    Performers aren't always the best at writing their own music… this is a little unfair. Performance and Composition are two completely COMPLETELY different fields. As a classical vocal performance major, I would have no freaking clue how to write my own classical stuff, much less stuff that is vocally okay for me to be doing. Just saying… I feel a lot of popular artists would share my view on this.

  14. Cass says – reply to this


    14

    I don't claim to have all the answers when it comes to solving the music business problems we are faced with currently…but it just seems like every time the industry thinks they have thought of a solution, it is the worst possible "solution," and it could make–if it hadn't/hasn't, already–things worse. :(

  15. tg says – reply to this


    15

    Sounds like money to me. How greedy can be people be. Then the radio stations shouldn't play their music, which makes people go out and buy it.
    Charge them Advertising fees to play their music.

  16. jenni says – reply to this


    16

    Obviously none of these artists have ever seen the budget of a radio station. Bo Diddley would not have been able to tour at all if it were not for the fans/exposure that he gained from radio airplay.

    Note to musicians: play music because you love it, once the $ starts coming in learn to budget/open a savings account, be grateful for any and all free exposure/promotion that you get.



  17. 17

    Yeah, Sinatra was rich but studio musicians and others don't make money while producers and songwriters do seems a little unfair. Obviously, there is a system in place to pay those guys, why not a small cut for the actual artists on these tracks?



  18. 18

    this is one of the most ridic lawsuits i've seen in awhile (minus the lawsuit that the gamers filed against madden yesterday).. but at least i'll never have to hear "these boots were made for walking" again

  19. Candy says – reply to this


    19

    I would even wonder how much airplay her father's music gets . . . There are very few stations that play his music, as most play that pop crap. She should leave it alone . . . If she really isn't worried about the money, she could say that all money goes into a pot to support older, living musicians.

    Or, she could simply start a station as Graceland has on SIRUS.



  20. 20

    Let's just say that if this bill passes and the radio stations are forced to pay royalties, then commercial radio is dead. No station or company is going to pay royalties to artists. Instead they'll put up a big middle finger and say have fun getting your songs heard now assholes!

  21. min says – reply to this


    21

    I don't have a problem with this. Performers and even music labels contribute to the product so why should they specifically be cut out? The performer brings the song to life often adding their own energy, personality and interpretation even if someone else wrote it. Kudos to people who sing and write their own songs. But that doesn't mean if you sing a song someone else wrote that you don't matter. Just be fair!

  22. Shayn says – reply to this


    22

    Radio is a huge part of promotion for an artist. So, in essence, radio stations are doing artists a huge favor by playing songs by a particular artist. These stations don't have to play any particular songs, they can choose whatever they want to play. So why would they pay an artist while doing that artist a favor at the same time? There is no integrity in the music industry anymore.

  23. XFVOC says – reply to this


    23

    The whole industry is in flux. It reminds me of when studio owned actors started going independent. Enterprising people always find a way to a workable free market system. Until technology messes with it again….but no one likes to work for peanuts. It's supply and demand. I like the previous poster's suggestion to find some money to put away for the old artists, bless 'em all. I got a day job, but would be singing again if I could.

  24. Jerem says – reply to this


    24

    To better understand, If you take direct on-air television, which broadcasts ABC, CBS, NBC and the like — then compare it to cable, direct tv and satellite. The same comparison applies to Public Radio and Satellite Radio. Public radio is "free" for listeners, satellite is not.

    Unless radio stations start "charging" for their services, there is no offset for these proposed costs. Remember when cable tried to rebroadcast ABC, CBS and NBC — and then charge viewers to watch, even though they are free public stations?

    Artists need to use public radio as a means to promote themselves and their work. Many people wouldn't even know their song exists, if not for them.

  25. tree says – reply to this


    25

    Miss one hit wonder still trying to sponge off of Daddies fame… So sad…

  26. jc says – reply to this


    26

    Fairness? She has no idea about the music business, and its promotion.

  27. I'm says – reply to this


    27

    Riiiiight…..when the economy is in its current state? What a bunch of greedy assholes, sucking money out of the people who don't have it to begin with. Just because they aren't demanding money from everyday people right now doesn't mean that what they're asking for won't eventually trickle down to affect you.

  28. elle says – reply to this


    28

    That's so stupid! The SONGWRITERS or COMPOSERS are the only ones who need money from radio airplay! The artists and labels don't need nor deserve it! They didn't write the songs-they get money elsewhere that the songwriters don't get. And the artists and labels make a hell of a lot more money than songwriters anyway. Shut up Nancy Sinatra and be happy with what you have!!

  29. Music says – reply to this


    29

    Dear Perez,

    If you want to "discover" new music, that's one thing. But to even begin to intelligently discuss the complex subject of royalties is a bit over your head, Mario. And to have the nerve to pass judgment on artists' rights to royalty money in a business model that you don't fully understand is just over the top. Being the figurehead of a record label is the same as pimping a new soft drink. It doesn't mean you know the first thing about how the soda is made — you are simply the brand. Don't get ahead of yourself.

    Also, the reality that you haven't alluded to is that ultimately radio stations play what they're paid, or "influenced", to play — just like the music on your blog, Perez!! Tell your lovely readers why you feature the artists you do…

  30. Music says – reply to this


    30

    Re: Shayn

    Major commercial radio stations play what the record labels pay and persuade them to. They don't make a single independent decision anymore and it's been this way for a long time. Only AAA and college radio have any integrity.

  31. Eliza says – reply to this


    31

    Perez, you are a mindreader! On the way home from work, I was listening to the radio, and I said to myself, Self, I wonder if anyone gets paid when songs are played on the radio. So thanks for answering my question! :)

  32. Gina says – reply to this


    32

    PEREZ FUCKK YOU !
    DON't YOU EVER SAY ANYTHING NASTY ABOUT THE SINATRA'S
    THEY ARE THE GREATEST PPL TO EVER LIFE !
    NANCY IS RIGHT !!!!! IT'S NOT ABOUT MONEY
    IM SO SICK OF YOU PEREZ AND YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT
    AND DONT YOU EVER DISRESPECT THE SINATRA'S AGAIN !!!! FUCK YOU .. YOU GAYS ASS LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CUNT FACE !

  33. Frank says – reply to this


    33

    Don't talk about the Sinatra family Perez. They are awesome people!

  34. Tee says – reply to this


    34

    Internet radio barely has a pulse thanks to the overwhelming taxes and fees. It would be sad what this would do to radio stations. Right now those artists get free promotion. I don't even know how many times I heard a song on the radio and went home to find it and buy it off itunes or something. Maybe let the artists decide for themselves, then radio stations can choose not to air the greedy ones.

  35. Sherr says – reply to this


    35

    Bo Diddley had to tour to support himself because he lost the publishing and royalties to all his songs due to slimy record companies. Most likely the same with old Blue Eyes. She's most likely the recipient of the estate and that includes likenesses, etc. Radio generates sales of the artists music and in return they are given money based on units sold by publishers and their music company. Worse is file sharing and illegal copying of artists music because then they truly get nothing. For an eye opening read on how musicians make money read the Jen Trynin book "Everything I'm Cracked Up to Be: A Rock & Roll Fairy Tale". It is doubtful Nancy will succeed in her request just because she needs the money now.

  36. s says – reply to this


    36

    radio = exposure and free promotion. why get too greedy? how about we NOT buy $100,000 cars and 3 mansions. then maybe they wont be complaining about not having enough money.

  37. Citiz says – reply to this


    37

    When I read something like this, I think of how it will affect me. Not that I'm shallow, but if you looked at all things like this, you'd get a better understanding of the world around you. But I digress… This means even MORE commercials on the radio, unless you're lucky enough to have satellite. And if you are, a hike in subscription payments.

  38. Erin says – reply to this


    38

    Radio stations should not receive free content. They play recordings that cost MILLIONS of dollars to create, and they play them for free. The hundreds of people that had their hands in creating any recording do not receive a PENNY for the public's hours of enterainment. It makes no sense that if every piece of music you hear has three parts contributing to it (the songwriter, the singer, and the recording of it), why do radios only pay ONE of the three parts. If any of the three parts is missing, you would have NO entertainment (and ergo, they would have no content). Even if an artist writes their own music, they should still get paid for also contributing their voice. Likewise, record labels have let the injustice go for long enough. For every recording you hear, literally hundreds of people have put in time. If label's don't get kick backs from a fair revenue stream like the radio, they will slowly be forced to lay off their hardworking employees. Radio should be a legit revenue stream.

  39. FrUiT says – reply to this


    39

    MARIO… you're retarded! (But then again, what else is new?!) Not every singer is an 'artist.' Asking them all to write their own songs is like asking all actors to write their own lines or direct their own films. It's not an easy task to take on EVERY aspect of the music-making process. Some singers, or 'artists,' can and do a great job of this, whilst others are simply 'performers.' I'm sure you'd realize that if you weren't so damn narow-minded.

  40. bec v says – reply to this


    40

    we have it in australia. it is called the phonographic performance collection agency or PPCA, and collects (not for profit) on behalf of performers and the owner recording. i think it is totally fair. why should radio stations have the right to use someone elses property and not have to pay for it? do you think the drummers and bassists of the world get paid fairly for all the rehearsals and gigs they do before they are famous? not chance.

  41. Lesli says – reply to this


    41

    Maybe artists should at least try to write their own music don't ya think?
    a fair cut to both sides would be the idea.

    Frank Sinatra was the best of the best.
    He would be rolling in his grave if he knew you even posted a stamp of him on your blog.

  42. john says – reply to this


    42

    Radio play is the promotion that gets people to buy these songs, you're actually right about something Perez. And yes, it is about money, not principle, you're right about that too.

  43. bunse says – reply to this


    43

    Can someone explain to me how it DOESN'T hurt radio stations when they pay royalties to composers and songwriters, but it DOES when the stations pay royalties to the performers?

  44. tnyga says – reply to this


    44

    The artist brings the songs to life. Sure a good hook is catchy no matter who sings, but it truly takes a great voice and musicianship to make a song last. It is rare for songs to be rememebered for who wrote them…. although maybe that's the trade off… one gets the fame & the name while the other silently rakes in the dough. Unless of course you write and perform your own shit… anyways - they should make sumthin!

  45. noclu says – reply to this


    45

    you have no idea what you are talking about. you run your mouth, trying to get a rise out of people. when you talk shit about something you just skim the top, you have no clue what this is all about. people that dont deserve revenue that frank sinatra brings in gets some, when the family is left with nothing. dont speak in long paragraphs that you know nothing about. for the sinatras its really not about the money, they have enough, its about fairness. why do YOU make it all about the money, cant you just take peoples word, and not bash them for it. your a fucking gossip writer, so dont try and be smart.

  46. zilfm says – reply to this


    46

    WOW! I did not know that in the States they pay no royalties to performers! In Europe they' ve been paying them broadcast royalties for ever. And for television broadcast too. I think it's fair, a song cannot exist and be aired on radio without someone performing it.

  47. poop says – reply to this


    47

    his eyes.. are blueeeee

  48. The R says – reply to this


    48

    Fuck you Perez.

    It has been a broken system and it's not all about money grubbing. The singer/performer deserves their cut from radio play just as much as a composer/writer and if you can't see that than you're a fucking fool.

    And plus, if it was something Ol' Blue Eyes led the charge for, then FUCK EVERYONE WHO'S AGAINST IT

  49. Nicol says – reply to this


    49

    I think that only the songwriters should get royalties. The people who own the rights to the song and the people who sing them are NOT the artists. They didn't put in the work to create the song, therefore, they should NOT get royalties. That's like taking credit for a project in school that your dad and mom made for you.

    PEOPLE SHOULD WRITE THEIR OWN SHIT. IF YOU CAN'T WRITE IT, DON'T PERFORM IT!!!! (and don't call yourself an artist either)



  50. 50

    Seriously, all these people in entertainment need to stop demanding more money. They're already rich as hell and our economy is in a nose dive so what gives them the right to say they're not getting enough? Fuck them!