Bob Dylan, Nick Carter

In our continuing discussion of intellectual property, music, and the question of what art is worth in general, I've received some very insightful and oftentimes profane comments about the subject. It seems as though you all are somewhat heated by the subject. Pay too much for that sub-par Dixie Chicks album?

Here is a portion of one comment, posted by one gdragon:

"What a*^-hole decided that any musician's song is worth 10 cents a play, no matter what!? I mean seriously, ten cents!? That means, in the marketplace, Bob Dylan receives the same amount per play as does Nick Carter. . .that sh*t's f*cked up!"

I can certainly see where you are coming from, gdragon. You are correct that the marketplace in the music industry is indeed, f*cked. If Bob Dylan is a classic Ford from the 60's, and Nick Carter is a 2005 Saturn Ion, why would anyone consider paying an equal amount for the two cars? You would have to be truly loony toony to actually consider that.

In the case of the music business however, our government has decided to extend the long arm of the law into a business sector where it has no place, where the free market could certainly work things out naturally.

Just like the Patriot Act or the drug war, the Feds will certainly claim they are just trying to "protect" you.

It is true that the 10 (actually 9.1) cents that gdragon speaks of, known as the statutory rate (stop giggling, that's not funny), does prevent many musicians and songwriters from getting royalty screwed (pun intended). But in the grand scheme of things, placing a price, any price on art is devaluing its potential worth. As soon as anyone decides that a song is worth more that 10 cents, the law has effectively prevented the worth of that art from going up.

Obviously Bob Dylan would like to receive more than the statutory rate, and probably deserves to do so. Then again, will I be happy when I receive my first royalty check for $.45? You bet your booty I will.

I welcome any/all comments/questions about this subject, it really does torque some people off. What any musicians reading this should know, is that your chances of generating revenue are decent when performing live, somewhat conceivable when selling your music, and virtually impossible when solely depending on royalties. This is largely because of the increasing irrelevance of radio, maybe next time we can dive in to that...

Frogs Gone Fishin' just finished a three-day run over the weekend to the mountains and Boulder. It was great to play a college town during the school year, something FGF really hasn't done because we've all been at school in different locales. The kids at CU really know how to throw down a party (especially after a CU win over CSU, the big state rival). We are also selling our old trailer in order to buy a bigger, better, sexier trailer.

If you're in Denver, come check out FGF at Wash Park Grille this Friday. And regardless of where you are, have a safe and happy week!

The Feds and Pandora's Box

I received a very eloquent comment from a reader after my last post which I'll re-post in its entirety:

"Why does the gov't f&%k the scene!? Music tax is killing the music! Why?! WHY!?! HOW DO YOU STOP IT!? But seriously. . .why does gov't f*@k Pandora. . ."

Thank you Tony B for your inspiring questions! Tony also sent me the following link which he is referencing in his commentary:

< blog.wired.com

For anyone who has not yet discovered the musical wonder that is Pandora.com, you better hurry! The headline of the article which Tony B is so peeved about is titled "Pandora Could Be First Major Casualty of New Royalty Rates". If you are one those who don't know, Pandora is a free online music radio which plays stations that are customized to listener's musical preferences. Type in The Bob Marley Station, and the result is a constant stream of reggae-influenced songs, not necessarily the African Herbsman himself, which the listener can then approve or shun. These "I Like It"/"I Don't Like It" ratings put forth by the listener are then applied to an algorithm of over 250 musical variables and bam!: a radio station perfectly tailored to your aural palette. Pretty neat. It's so neat that I can see why Tony B is all torqued off about The Feds raising royalty rates for artists. Then again, I am an artist and stand to make a whopping 10 cents every time one of my songs is played online!

At the outset, it seems that us songwriters have a clear-cut choice: to support rising royalty rates. Then again, Pandora is a just about the best promotional and marketing tool for a new artist that could be imagined at this point in technological history. A short discussion of exactly what intellectual property is might help us decide what we really think...

You see Tony, the federal government has in place protections for people who are the copyright owners of something we like to call intellectual property. Because art and entertainment are largely intangible concepts, it is hard to ascribe value to a product which is not monetarily standard. Art means something different to everyone and therefore has a different price depending on who you ask to value it. As we all know however, most people are greedy and will gladly enjoy music or a book or a movie or a sculpture for free, given the chance. I know I fall into this category! As much as I would love to put up an esoteric, uber-artistic front of strictly paying for the art I enjoy, the pragmatic considerations of my post-grad musician's budget prevent this entirely. (I have earned 98 cents from Google AdSense writing this blog; I'll need an accountant in no time!)

So as the Feds decide what to do about online royalty rates, Pandora-listeners and songwriters alike anxiously await the decision. As of now, according to above article on wired.com, there is "no specific day on which Pandora will go offline, assuming rates are not changed" according to Pandora founder Tim Westergren.

So chill, Tony. Pandora is not going anywhere anytime soon. They are financed by venture capital and advertsing. Given their listenership, I think they will figure things out. As for us musicans, any royalty issue will come down to the simple economics of whether the promotional return on a song played outweighs the 9.5 centavos we stand to earn from the Copyright Board's legislation.

Personally, I would love to give my music away for free if it meant that the person listening would then come to multiple shows (which earn higher revenue for artists than albums, anyway), buy a Frogs Gone Fishin' t-shirt and matching lighter-holder along with the two-disc DVD box set....

Until that day, all one can do is write solid songs and try to play outrageously fun shows. Focusing on that is a lot more fun than fretting over 10 cents.


A very good article by David Byrne:
www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne