JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum New Online Radio Show for Indie Artists to submit music!

Hey there! A new online radio show is about to open soon for indie artists. Check out the site for more info!! The station will not be paying for broadcasting of any forms of works sent by others -- it is a place for indie artists to present their works for free, and get noticed, while in the meantime having some fun! Get ready for the countdown!! First show will be August 3rd. Almost all genres accepted, as long as not a lot of profanity. Submission info is on the FAQ's sheet of the site: www.kimberlycardarella.com

And send the word to others about the show!!!

I had a look at this and liked what I saw.
Graham

Thanks much for the note Graham !

Looks very professional!

Wish you well with it, the quality should definately get people interested.

Matt

Hi Kimberly:

Your site appears to be still under construction. (May just be my slow, dial-up connection!) I'm assuming that your show and station KSCE (I hope I got that right) are in Hawaii? If that's correct, which island? (I would assume Oahu.) Is this a "net only" broadcast or can it be heard on "regular" radios?

Since it's difficult for some of us to send MP3 files because of slow dial-up, would you consider a CD with a single song in MP3 format? If the answer is "yes," would you post a snail-mail address or P.O. Box address for us? Lots of talent here at JPF.

Good luck with your show.

Dave Rice http://xenaRadio.com/David_Lynn_Rice/

Thanks Matt for the nice comment -- is much appreciated !

Dave, the site is ready to go -- and the first show will start August 3rd. During week 1 and 2, more of the spaces will begin to get filled in with "presented songs," etc. By week 2, most or all spaces will be filled with fresh links. As for now, it is up for artists to check out the site itself, the show to come, the FAQ's sheet... and for people to submit works to the show.

As for where the show is playing -- people will be able to click on the link online, and it will play from the internet. In turn, people can be anywhere for the most part, as long as they have internet dialup, etc. KSCE is the LLC, the business side of things. It is an internet based radio station. There will be considerations in the future perhaps to make this also a station that is played on the common radio.

The show currently only accepts MP3's. This is for many reasons. If you do not have a quick dial up, some ideas are to put your song on a CD and take it to a friend who might have quicker connection, or an internet coffee shop, a store that gives free internet access, etc.... any place that would give you the chance to send the mp3 from your CD. Thank you for asking that question, as I will add this info to the webpage in the near future.

Hi Kimberly!
I just emailed you my submission for a new song I just finished recording! The song length is just under 5 minutes. My email includes the song download link so you can get the high quality version of my MP3 song file! Hopefully that will be ok.

Please email me if you have any problems downloading my song file or if you have any questions about my submission.

Thanks & best wishes with your new show!
Michael

Thanks for the note Michael. Message has been received.

It seems like a download link would be fine.

Have a good day,

And thanks for joining the Kimberly Cardarella show!

You do not pay royalties? How are you bypassing the internet broadcast royalty laws? What will you do when the new Broadcast laws take effect?

While I can certainly appreciate you promoting Indie music I would ask if this is a Non Profit venture? If not why would I allow you to use my music to make money if you are not going to compensate me for it?
There are already thousands of internet radio stations out there doing the same thing. I won't let them have my music for free either.

In any case Good luck with your new show.

Please see my next post below...
Thanks!

I would assume that as long as Kimberly gets all submitters to waive their rights to fees than everything would be OK (but I don't really know).

Kevin

Kevin,
Yes, I would agree. I've seen others post about the opportunities that artist have to provide waivers to their PROs such as ASCAP and BMI, etc. This would mean that the stations wouldn't have to pay any royalties to these collection agencies.

Michael

This is a little bit of a ramble... yet, here are some of the reasons the site is the way it is:

Some sites are for the already famous. Some sites are for those looking to get heard. And the type of site it is should be a part in relating to how the pay goes. Does not mean that if one is not famous by the way, that they are not a good artist (just like if one is famous does not mean that they are, etc). This is relating to who has hit the spotlight so far, compared to who needs to.

The service that the site is providing, is putting up a site for indie artists to get heard, get known, or even just have fun. Some might not care about being famous, yet are looking to get shown to find other band members, singers for their demos, etc. They don't need to "pay for advertisement.." It is free advertisement (in regards to referring to advertisement of the artists).

The ads/ links that are placed on the site are for the work the company does. It's kind of like a web server who says that they will let you put your website on their server for free -- yet... they get to put ads on there, and that is how they make their profit (while serving you at the same time).

This site is for artists who are wanting to be advertised (by being on the site), heard, get known, or just have fun -- and it's easy to, because the whole thing is free. Many sites get artists to pay to have areas to upload mp3's, etc. This place is free for the artists, and the people who work for the business running the site to help the site run, will get paid for the work it does through it's advertisement.

Regardless though -- any site should make it clear on what type of site it is. And then it is up to each artist to determine if it would be a good/ fun experience for them to join in. A lot of work gets put in running a site. The advertisements will merely help pay for the work of those who are working for the company to help run the site. Which seems fair. And -- if an artist would prefer to find a site where royalties are offered (which is often looking for the already at least somewhat famous crowd), that is ok too -- as there are such sites out there.

If looking to have fun and get heard... does not matter the level of expertise -- this site is here to provide service to make things fun, and put people in the spotlight to get better known.... while in the meantime, the listeners get to have some fun. I guess you could say you don't need to be famous. Yet -- you never know... here is where you might take a step in becoming famous. And again, some will just be on there for the joy of it. Artists can choose to join for any of their own valid reasons.

Hi Kimberly!
Good post & generally I agree 100% with your points, all well taken! Sure, I think its totally fair to get a free spotlight (like advertising) on a show that will expose and promote an artist's song, no problem with that.

From what I understand, small indie podcasters (i.e. internet radios) were almost going to be shut down and forced out of "business". They would have had to pay some huge fees to officially register to legally operate, go figure.

However, there is still some debate right now beyond the original July 15th deadline, so things may change. It's all up in the air right now, so we'll have to wait and see how the hammer falls.

Another problem was that they were going to start charging retroactively, so some podcasters could end up being surprised with a big royalty bill or get forced out of business, but this probably won't effect you since you're a new start up.

Well, let's see what develops in the next few weeks!
Michael

Thanks Michael,
I thought that if it was stated clearly the direction the business was offering, regarding the topic discussed in this thread, then it could be that way. Yet -- what you said leaves room for questioning.

Thanks again!

Kimberly,
My main point is that these internet radio issues are much bigger than just what your radio station plans are. There's some large issues involved and most of us here don't have all the answers yet, including myself. I think we're all trying to understand this better.

These "internet issue" topics should more likely being posted on the JPF Industry forum were folks can discuss & learn more about the current internet radio trends taking shape.

Regards,
Michael

I Applaud and support anyone who is promoting Independent Music and artists.
However, I constantly see artist here and elsewhere complaining that they are not able to get sales of their music CD's and or paid downloads from the net.
Then those same artists turn around and give their music away to radio stations that don't pay royalties.
I am even guilty of that myself. However, I have begun to change my mind on the issue.
It is no wonder that indies don't make any money off their music. They are so desperate to get heard they will give it away.
I for one would support mandatory royalties. make it illegal for any internet station to play music without paying royalties.
Question.
How can a station that pays royalties compete with a station that does not pay royalties?

I am a Carpenter, I did remodeling work for a living. If there were companies that did the work for free how could I compete? I couldn't. I'd be out of business in no time.
That is how I see the internet radio stations that do not want to pay royalties.
Personally I do not think there are very many that are doing it out of the goodness of their heart. They are making money off the artists without compensating them.
You said it yourself. It takes work to run an internet radio station and the people that run it get paid. But you don't want to pay the very people that make the show possible, The Artists.

I just don't get it.
But I do wish you the best of luck in your venture. Many artists will appreciate you playing their music.

Many businesses out there try to get as much money as they can from anyone, etc. Many people try to not have to do any work.

Should you pay royalties to the guitar maker whose guitar you play when making your music for cd's? Or the michrophone or software/ computer maker that you record with? It could get down to extremes of -- where should royalties really be paid. And anyone can try to make a sound enough argument on why they should get money... once someone hits the financial spotlight.

Should a radio business, get a percentage of the cd's you sell, because the radio station is helping get your cd's sold?

The music industry is a rough place. And there are Many artists out there, and therefore it is difficult to make money. This radio station never had the intent of: you do the work, and we'll make money from you. This radio station had the intent of: we have interest in music... and we'll make this fun by creating a place to spotlight other artists who are looking to get heard, etc... make it so they can collaborate easier, get their cd's seen, they might make a buck or few from those who see their cd and then decide to click on the artist's website to purchase from the artist, etc. In the meantime, it is free for them, because the business will be paid through ads.

This station is doing the work to provide a service, and it is a more then fair the direction of the service. I had no intention of doing anything that was unfair to the people. Yet, I have to make sure that I am making it fair for both sides (not handing things out to those who want to try to get all they can get, etc).

If it looks impossible in the future to make a fair company. I will step back, and choose another job. Yet, so far... a lot of people seem to think it is fair, including me.

If you have a famous singer who is known worldwide singing a song for a product -- the product gets more publicly known because of the singer, and the singer should get paid. If artists want to get in the spotlight, and a radio show takes time to get people involved, and do things such as listed above as the intent of the station -- it is then the radio show that should get paid.

The directions of this company have been expressed. I have nothing to hide. I have also shared my own opinion, regarding this topic. And each has a right to his/her own opinion.

Kimberly
I am in no way trying to discourage you from this venture. I hope it succeeds and you do well. For the artists who wish to give away their music for free I say good for them.
However, the guitar manufacturer, the software designer, the computer maker, and everyone else who had anything to do with my music has been paid in full. To the tune of about $20,000 worth of gear and recording facility I do my music in.
So has the CD manufacturer, the printer, the jewel case manufacturer, etc.
The only person who has not been paid in full is me.
I would like to be paid now also.
If my music is good enough that might happen, if not, it won't be because I gave it away.
Again, good luck with this. I hope it works out well for you.

A bookstore, or e-book store has sellers pay percentage of sale to post their works. Same with games in game stores, or e-games put on e-selling sites, etc. And of course other products. They certainly do not pay the product makers for their own work, to take on the time to help display their product.

My site is not saying "give your work away for free." It is a place saying: for free, we will help artists display work -- which may be getting more people to click on their links and purchase cd's, etc. In such a case -- the artist gets full funds for things they sell -- rather then paying the website a percentage. That is one of the many parts of the service of the sites, and why the site is valuable to musicians.

I could make it a e-cd store like that... where musicians pay percentages to sell their works, and no ads. Yet even many places that make money from ads still have such sellers pay percentages for sales of their products on the site in addition. Yet it seems more effecient for both sides.... the way I am doing it. And I think what you are suggesting is unfair, in regards to what this particular site is trying to do, and what the work and challenges a site faces in order to get the job done.

And then still back to -- are we talking about artists who are already known world-wide, or those who want help in getting known. As that would be a difference in -- is the famous artist advertising the show, or is the show advertising the artist. Trust me -- even if an artist made spotlight on my show -- they would probably at that point only be willing to go to stations that pay, etc (as they are now a famous "advertisor" for that station). Though others might not care even then, as publicity is publicity (depends on artist). While in the meantime, more artists who want a possible spotlight, and to get connected with other artists, etc... continue logging in to the radio show that this business is offering.

Like I said, each to his own -- yet, I think the direction I have taken is more then fair.

Bill, Kimberly, Michael: I am following this thread with much interest, as I am songwriter who would like to get his material heard, like most all the others. I used to allow free downloads from Soundclick and other similar sites, but I have now come to believe what I create is worth more than nothing, which is what I get when I allow free downloads. So, I have now made most of all my material on the web pay to own. I agree with much of what has been said on both sides, there are literally 100's of thousands of songwriters out there, whose presence has been made more viable by the internet. Just check myspace for all the would-be artists. The chances of anyone but a fraction of a percentage every getting heard or finding success is minimal. I believe giving it away just adds to the clutter, and fosters an attitude of why should I pay for what's free. Peoplle who sell a product usually get paid, as Bill says, for the equipment the raw CD's the studio, the instruments etc Why should the product created by that material then be given away free? That's a route to financial disaster. I pay a studio to do demos for me. If I give the songs away I'd never recoup the investment. Luckily, I can afford it, but not everyone can. I am a Professional, and "pro" means getting paid. I now sell my own songs on my own site. Maybe I'll never sell a single one, but I'll still be even. Zero is zero anyway you slice it. /Glen

Glen,
Good points and generally I agree!
However, if a Radio Show or talent showcase can put one of your songs in the "spotlight", it could be a smart way to create some "buzz" for yourself as a songwriter, artist or label. It's close to "free" or at least VERY affordable advertising.

If people like what they heard and enjoyed (for example) a well done interview with an artist or band, it can spark interest which can help sell songs, album downloads and concert tickets, etc.

I'm not against artist promotion especially if it's a medium that gets people's attention in a positive, classy way.

My only concern is that with the new internet royalty rules, a lot of these "radio stations" might be forced out of business if they are forced to pay outrageous min. mandated royalty fees. This does leave some questions about how this effects most indie artists, especially if they aren't registered yet with one of the PROs or if they fully agree (with the stations) to get played without compensation, etc.

My hope is that these online stations can easily get waivers or exemptions based on their contracts with their various music sources such as the publishers, artists and record labels, etc. Tradionally, labels were more than happy to pay (radio payola) for the opportunity to get their songs performed. They figured it would increase record sales, but it was unfair to artists/labels that had no budget to compete with this under-handed manor.

I would never give ALL my music away, but 'just enough' to help promote it as needed. If my fans want a high quality copy of my songs, they can purchase and download them and industry people can also license my music for commercial projects, etc.

Artists that tour and do live shows will normally allow streaming of their MP3 files & music videos for promotional purposes. If done right this can help sell more Concert Tickets, CDs and Music Licensing, etc. I think artists need a healthy mix of ALL kinds of sales, not just CDs or digital downloads, but a good mix of all their products & services!

Michael

To me the matter is real simple.

If you are a pro that does music for your bread, then pay is important.
If you are an amateur that is out to establish yourself, then getting free play and for free is a valid alternative.

I have even known bands to where I live that started out gigging for free that are now paid because how they did drew an audience.

The net really is no different.
It is for exposure.

The thing I am concerned about with the shake up in sites being required to pay royalties is that there would have to be some measure of quality control.
Myself and people like me are still in their learning stages.
Places like soundclick then could not have the leway to let just anyone post songs. Or is that an overstatement?

I hope the net does'nt get RIAA'd up to the point to where the term indie musician is an oxy moron.

I would save individual sites like this one for something when I have more polished material, and the others as a learning tool.

When someone puts the time and creativity into a music site, of course we can not all think like lawyers in a day.

As long as I am not told what to do with my stuff, I already know what I am getting into.
Because there is more and more it seems to protect the artist.
But is that always the real motif?
I'm not one that is taken into a scam.
I came to this site originally to find out about a scam.

I know no one is implying that here.
And it is right to inform of the legalities.

I just hope that the rules don't end up prohibiting the indie musician.

Matt

I have to agree with Bill on this.A singer songwriter either buys his own equipment to record or goes into a studio and pay that studio and musicians to record his/her songs,a high investment.There are several ways to get their money back,CD sales, live performances and royalties through airplay.The studio and musicians have been paid up front,they don't get royalties,so if you sell none,they still got their money.

Radio is not in the business of selling music,they use music to sell advertising.Radio stations MUST pay PROs a percentage of their advertising dollars to permit them to use the music they play.If they didn't,then they could not play the music,so if a radio station has an all talk format,they don't have to buy a music license.But most radio stations know that most people want to hear GOOD music,so they play GOOD music to attract as many listeners as possible,so they can convince business to advertise with them.

I am only too happy to give my CD to a radio station,because if they play it and I get sampled by my PRO,I get paid a royalty.I am not so eager to give it to a radio station that I know I have no chance of getting anything back to cover the cost of the CD I just gave away.Airplay don't always translate into sales.There have been songs that were radio hits but sold poorly.

How many internet radio stations are there,thousands,tens of thousands,who knows.Are they much use to singers in making sales?
How many listeners do these stations attract?Tens,hundreds,maybe thousands?The better music they play,the better chance they have of attracting listeners.If the station is hoping to make advertising dollars,then they are going to have to prove that they can attract many listeners.If they are not willing to pay royalties,then the music they attract may repell listeners.Lets face it,there are likely millions of would be songwriter out there,and they all want to be heard,some have nothing to sell, maybe little or no money put into a recording,so they have little to lose,they just want their ego stroked.I'm not saying they are bad writer or singers,but they are not serious about their music,if they give it away they are saying it's not worth anything.If it is good,people will buy it,if it's not good they will not buy,but if you are giving it away,they will take it,after all it cost nothing so I can give it a toss.

If I have lots of product in my store but no one knows about it I may not sell much. If I 'give away' a sample and the person I give it to 'tells' a bunch of other people, and some of them come to my store and buy my product, and then they tell their friends and they come and buy, that initial 'giveaway' was an investment in advertising, and it worked. "If" of course is the big little word. If I give my product to a radio show and put the link on my website and advertise it at my gigs and talk it up and send traffic to hear me there, it could serve me in return, driving traffic back to me.
I just looked at www.myspace.com/savingjane and they've had 2,690,542 profile views and 2,703,006 plays of their debut song Girl Next Door. In an interview on www.savingjane.com they speak of 600,000 downloads. I hope those were for pay and not giveaways because that's some sweet money. But how did they do it? How did they get that traffic? They're getting played on regular broadcast radio and touring, but that was when they were with Universal. Now they're on an indie label. The 'carpenters' may have regular radio all sewn up, and the rest of us have to find other ways to get music out. The net is that way. If you can get it out there, somehow, and drive traffic back to your store, you don't need the Universals and the broadcast radio Clearchannels. You eliminate the middlemen and their bite of your pie and eat the whole pie, which you bought ingredients for, baked, paid the utility bills, and sweated over, yourself. It's a cooperative thing. This show isn't promising to do magic without your active participation. They're going to put it on a medium where people can find it. If you're participating, then you should have it on your website, announce it at your shows, talk it up to your potential customers, get some media coverage, promo the show that becomes the portal back to you. It could work, where attempts to go to the big record companies and broadcasters hit a brick wall. I'm inclined to say try it and see. If it's unproductive what have you lost? If it's productive, you've gained.

Evertt,
Interesting and you've made some good points!
While we're on the subject, I'm wondering about popular artist sites like MySpace, PureVolume, Broadjam and SoundClick. I know a lot of artists here are using SoundClick. Most of us get free accounts there to upload unlimited songs & images, set up unlimited "Radio" stations and get picked up by everyone else's stations whether they are artists, fans or both.

Currently I'm picked up by 20 stations for my Michael Borges Music account and on 30 stations for my
Michael Borges On Violin account.

That's a total of 50 stations that are broadcasting & spreading my music around!
I think I'm getting plenty of FREE exposure this way! These are station owners that picked up my songs because they really like my music, not because I'm paying them to promote my stuff. I know maybe 2 or 3 of the station owners, but not the rest of them, so word-of-mouth and email links (forwards) must be at work here.

So far I've never paid one penny to take part of SoundClick, but I have earned a little (70%) from download sales of my songs and albums, not much, but enough to make it fun and not need to quit anytime soon.

The only nit I have about the whole system is that SoundClick might be making more money then I off of my songs. They get paid on a "per view" (and/or play) basis from their ad sponsors which appear on banners all over the site AND on the Music Flash Player. There are top page (horizontal) banner ads, side page banner ads, some Pop-ups if I allow them and smaller banner ads inside the Music Player.

If I was paying for their monthly service plan, it would be completely Ad banner FREE for me and all my fans that visit my artist page, but that would cost me $9.95 per month. Let's say the ad banner sponsors (advertisers) are paying about 2 cents per click (page load, visit or song play, etc.) it would be easy to calculate how much SoundClick is earning from my music postings.

For example, in 2006 my "Michael Borges On Violin" page got a total of 13,844 page hits. A high percentage turned into actual song plays, so let's figure like this:
13,844 x 2-cents each = $276.88 for the whole year.

Now divide that by 12 months = $23.07 per month. But that's just for one ad, so let's say there are actually 3 ads being exposed: one for the top banner, one for the side page (vertical) banner and one for the Music player. So it's possible that SoundClick could have made about $69.21 per month off of that one account of mine.

Of course the exact figure will depend on much they are charging their commercial ad sponsors. Usually these kinds of banner ads can run anywhere from 1 to 5 cents per exposure and/or click, however they sell it. Most the the advertisers are larger companies that can probably afford monthly or annual volume discounts, so my estimate of 2 cents per exposure might be about right, as some might pay a bit less and others a bit more.

At the very least, SoundClick is estimating that the average artist is probably not getting more than about 500 "hits" per month, hence the price of $9.95 they are charging for their Ad FREE artist hosting option. But if I'm off (a bit), the average could be closer to 1,000 "hits" per month, I'm not sure.

My other account got 8,699 hits last year, so that's about 725 page views per average month which is probably close to or maybe slightly above average.

I think in the end it's a matter of business decisions and contracts between the online service providers and the artists or their labels. If the artists agree to the terms (TOA) that SoundClick offers, then probably it's a "fair & square" deal and no special legislation is needed to control such business. I don't think SoundClick or any of their direct competitors (like PureVolume, MySpace and Broadjam, etc.) are out to "screw" artists. If anything, they have probably done at least as much or MORE for the average indie artist than most other services around these days.

On the other hand, I do remember that MP3.com had a program that actually shared ad revenues with all their artists. I think the ads were selling for either 1 or 2 cents per "hit" and the artists got paid 50% by MP3.com, so it was probably a very cool deal which attracted more artists, more fans, more traffic and more advertisers. I think that's as close as you can get to an almost perfect "win-win" business model. After all, it does cost a lot of money to run these huge kinds of music service sites that need tons of storage space, bandwidth, equipment, programming and administration costs to handle that kind of business volume.

Michael

Everett:
"How many internet radio stations are there,thousands,tens of thousands,who knows.Are they much use to singers in making sales?
How many listeners do these stations attract?Tens,hundreds,maybe thousands?The better music they play,the better chance they have of attracting listeners.If the station is hoping to make advertising dollars,then they are going to have to prove that they can attract many listeners.If they are not willing to pay royalties,then the music they attract may repell listeners.Lets face it,there are likely millions of would be songwriter out there,and they all want to be heard,some have nothing to sell, maybe little or no money put into a recording,so they have little to lose,they just want their ego stroked.I'm not saying they are bad writer or singers,but they are not serious about their music,if they give it away they are saying it's not worth anything.If it is good,people will buy it,if it's not good they will not buy,but if you are giving it away,they will take it,after all it cost nothing so I can give it a toss".

I agree with what Everett said about having to spend the time and resources to get ahead in music.
I grew up knowing people where I live that have played in the scene since the sixties, even though I was'nt interested in playing at the time.
When I told them I would like to play someday and get it to whoever could here it they would tell me, don't give away your music.
And of course I would like people to love me and get my ego stoked.
But I am also a realist.

The part that does'nt stick with that being said of not being a serious venture with free music is that there are people trying to work there way up to first playing credible music.
I myself take that very seriously.
But I can't expect to charge money off of minimal equiment and not coming along yet in my writing and playing.

And there are many like me that have spent money on new recording knick knacks, investing time on getting their recordings reviewed or rated, and other methods of having some kind of progress report.
And also, the musician that has everything in place for their career would have the least to worry about from someone fumbling in their soundcard.
That's why all these new rules don't seem right to me.
The cream would rise to the top, as the saying would go.
Warning flags go up with me in the first place with rules on the net.
Criminals can be dealt with on the net without the regulations on the net and through the civic and state laws when it comes to crime.
If I had to pay a little money to be on a site, I would.
I have to pay to be on the net with a homesite because of my interest in music.
But it's all the rule stuff that's been popping out more recently, and the RIAA and communications branches right behind that.

I know in the future that I am giving away fewer of my recordings. I would submit maybe a few that derives off of what I am doing musically to get opinions on it.

But I want what I am going to do in the future to sound studio made.

My family has always told me that someone is'nt good at something unless they can make money off of it.
I don't know if that always rings true in music.
I would'nt really be out to sell cd's.

But I have to believe in myself if anyone else is to.
Despite what detractors might say.
And I know even the best of musicans have their detractors.

I know I am seriously persuing trying to have some respectability.

It is great having music sites and forums as a learning tool.
I hope we can always have that.

Matt

I'm going to step on some toes here, but here it goes:

Kimberly, in good faith, offered up an opportunity to be heard by more people than you are being heard by now. She's not forcing anyone to submit anything. If you want to take part, you should. (I will, eventually - I'm a procrastinator.) If you don't want to get involved, don't. (There may be some legitimate internet rules concerns involved, but the pay me argument because I've created something is getting old.)

The whole "I play music or offer my music for money or I don't play or offer my music' argument has always kind struck as silly and shortsighted. Music is a form of expression as well as a commodity and to have that form of expression you have to be heard. If you want to be heard you have to do what it takes to be heard. That might mean having to give something to get something.

It would be great if everyone appreciated the genius of our creations and were willing to pay for everything we create. Unfortunately artists and artisans don't always get paid for things they have created. But that makes them no less of an artist or artisan than someone who is getting paid.

In relation to music, I haven't read a lot of reviews that say one artist is better than another because they are getting paid more. A lot us don't have the 'name' or 'reputation' to be demanding anything. Basically we're in an apprenticeship, learning a trade. Keep plugging away and maybe you'll get to the point where you get what you deserve.

I've played for money, I've played for free. I've sold some CDs, I've given some away. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to get paid, especially when it's for something I've created. But personally, (and I repeat, personally) I don't think money should be the driving force behind anyone's involvement in music. Radio can show you what that leads to. UGHHH!

Steve V

Everett, it seems what you are saying is that the direction of this radio station was: I want to make money by placing ads, what kind of site can I create that will do this. That is not the case, was rather a wrongful accusation.

A few have now said that talent is paid. What about Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, etc. If we based talent, the concept of genius, etc on how much one takes from others.... where would we categorize such people? That sounds like snobbery.

Interesting how people say: I as the musician am the artist, creator, the one that spent money (to make the song, etc). As the radio show/ website creator... I had spent a lot of money on a good enough computer to handle a lot of info, an external hard drive, a program to create the website/ artwork with, pay for the bandwith of the site, etc. And in the future might have paid for extra writers, talk show hosts, more bandwidth etc. And I am having to go through a lot of financial struggle to do this. In the meantime -- I am also doing the artwork, writing, and will be doing the talk-show part of hte whole deal, making the show itself.

What you are saying, is that you want the station to go to all the bother, financial and time investments, and risks, while you still make part profit. Things that might make this fair if the artists want part of the profit: make it a sub chapter S corp -- that way you can invest your own money. If the corp goes up from ads, you make investments, if teh corp goes down, you are accepting part of the loss. Perhaps make it a co-op radio station where all pitch in to expenses, risks, etc. That way -- all pitching in should also make part of the profit.

What is really being said though by some of the people on the thread so far: is that artists are the geniuses, and they want 50 percent of the profit, while not withstanding any of the responsibility or risks for the show. Who is the taker in this picture? I give more then most people, and have worked for many years for free. Yet that does not mean that I should not create a job for myself where I earn a fair income.

Many of today's people want to make money from other people's work. And I am going to more risk then you are as the song creator, by creating this show. And I spent the money on the show, etc. So while I profit from the revenue of the show -- the artists would profit from higher cd sales, tickets, etc... if their work is sellable. I think it is more then a fair trade-off.

Frankly -- show might not start anyway. I had calculated my finances to the tee, and was ready to go -- had almost a year to spend waiting for revenue. Now -- my computer crashed, whiping out all the adobe programs with it (and they refuse to help me get the programs that I paid a high price for back). So once I buy a new puter, I am still looking for some way to get adobe programs to use again -- and then I will be in serious rationing for the next few/ several months. I am fine with that by the way -- as I am a hard worker. Yet what I am not ok with, is someone suggesting that I am trying to just take advantage of others. I worked hard, and put a lot of investment and risk into all this. A musician asking for a percentage from this would be highly unfair.

I got into making music, and learned a little more about the "starving artists" deal. I was trying to get involved in something that I loved, while helping the "starving artists" out there. Yet that should not mean dishing out profits for my own work. Your extra cd sales, if talented, should be plenty (as I am not asking for any percentage).

One being talented, artistic, a genius, intelligent, etc... has nothing to do with how much they get paid, like many on this list implied. There are many great and talented people out there, whether they are a waitress, doctor, lawn service provider, famous actor, unfamous actor, garbage pick-up man/woman, etc. And some people literally choose the route to work for free for various reasons -- even though they may have more talent then those selling, or work even harder. Talent has nothing to do with who is selling music. That again, seems a little like snobbery.

And if this show is being referred to as selfish for charging, or being a gimmick show.... then that is your thing. I do many things for free. Just like most people go to their regular job for money... I need to have my space where I make money for my needs. And I will still do a LOT of other things for free.

You probably did not expect this letter, yet I was not expecting things that happened in this past week. And I was not expecting the bashing that happened on this thread -- yet it was right for me to stand up for myself. I will do my darndest to make things happen with the show (if I decide it is best for it to continue). It might be postponed for another week or two regardless though due to computer issues. Otherwise, if I find myself not able to start it at all,or just decide not to (as legal radio issues need to be looked at as I intend on staying legal... yet legal and fair these days are often two different things), I will find another way that I can do right now, and still be involved in creativity somehow in a Fair way.

I certainly hope you do not think I was Bashing you. Believe me if I were you would know it.
I only wished you luck and success in this venture.

I do however find it ironic that you continue to say everyone deserves to be paid, the waitress, the truck driver, yourself. You have invested a lot of time and money into your venture and deserve to make a profit...yet, you still think a songwriter who has invested years and thousands of dollars in their music does not deserve to be paid if you use their music to make money.
Sorry, I just don't get it.
But, I still wish you well. Sorry for the financial set backs you have experienced.
Songwriters make the best money from air play royalties, not CD sales. CD sales are only a part of it.

I've already said -- those wanting to get on the show are there because they are getting advertising... and they will profit from it. While others just want to collaborate. And there are many artists who get profit from cd's. You keep saying you want both your cake and mine. I'm saying -- you get yours, I get mine, we both benefit.

The waitresses serve the food, and even "advertise" it by talking about how scrumptious it is while the people at the table read to order lick their lips. More deserts get sold, etc. -- the restaurant does NOT tell the waitress, she owes them collatoral for the food that she is helping sell... that they made.

And when art is put in a store that is paying for the space, and people to take the time to present it in shows, etc -- it is the artist that is paying the store part profit to help sell their work. The store does not pay the artist generally.

This discussion is going in circles. You keep repeating the same thing. There is a time to step out of such discussions. I'm done.

I've already said -- those wanting to get on the show are there because they are getting advertising... and they will profit from it. While others just want to collaborate. And there are many artists who get profit from cd's. You keep saying you want both your cake and mine. I'm saying -- you get yours, I get mine, we both benefit.

The waitresses serve the food, and even "advertise" it by talking about how scrumptious it is with the people at the table ready to order lick their lips. More deserts get sold, etc. -- the restaurant does NOT tell the waitress, she owes them collatoral for the food that she is helping sell... that they made. I'm actually not into certain types of advertising... yet I am fine with presenting songs, and getting people to listen, get involved, etc.

And when art is put in a store that is paying for the space, and people to take the time to present it in shows, etc -- it is the artist that is paying the store part profit to help sell their work. The store does not pay the artist generally.

This discussion is going in circles. You keep repeating the same thing. There is a time to step out of such discussions. And I've already explained things. I'm done.

A few thoughts here Guys.
As a lot know, I ran a radio show built for, and playing only Indie artists from the net, and touring bands.
I didn't get paid.
The artists didn't get paid.
Remember this about being paid for the use of a song other than live perfomance, it has to be recorded and played publically to be heard, and if that happens, it makes the recordinga commercial release, and so, anybody can record it without having to ask for first release recording rights.
Being paid for a demo to be played anywhere means the owner loses control of the song's debut artist.
I wouldn't want that, and doubt many would.
The other thing to consider is, for those who use demo houses. Did you get a release to use the demo as a commercial recording when you signed the demo contract?
If not, you probbaly don't have the right to have it played and get paid for it.
Nothing stopping you getting it air time on a no pay for play show though.
I see stations doing this sort of thing as being a modern day Tin Pan Alley.
Just liike the old masters the likes of Irving berlin and co, who wrote good, but were no great shakes as artists, used to do back in the olden days.
The good old olden days when publishers had to actually do some of the work in regard to being able to hear a song with potential in the rough.
Mind you. Today's tin pan alley has a heap of gizzmoes to make the output sound better than they did way back then.
My suggestion is.
Give it a go folks.
I am reworking a few to subm,it now I have a beter recording setup, and think my singing has improved.
And contacting some of the collabs and demo singers I have used to make sute it is okay to put their takes on my stuff up also.
Keep at it Kimberly.
Ya doing good.
Graham

I've been following this thread with interest....One reason for differing opinions is that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Seems to me there is only one question a musician has to ask of him/herself before participating in something like this....

Am I likely to increase or decrease my sales by allowing a station to play my song for free?

Then act accordingly.......

As I don't try to sell my music, the question is moot.

Glen raises an issue that I suppose leads to another question. Am I likely to decrease someone ELSE's sales by giving my music away for free?

My answer, based on everything I've experienced, is "not if that someone else is making better music".

When I was young, my Dad brought home a bunch of '45s that he had gotten at auction. They were, I guess, loss leaders - not demos. They were by people my brother and I had never heard of. We listened to them and some of them were pretty good. But they had zero effect on our buying habits, as they were not as good as what was selling and what we were buying.

If someone likes a song, they will pay for it. If they don't like it, they might take it if it is free - but it won't stop them from paying for what they like. Just one opinion from my own experience, of course.

Why did people start paying for cable TV when they could get broadcast for free?

Keep punching, Kimberly - there's room for all kinds of different approaches in this world. The only thing that scares me is when things boil down to just one....

Scott

Some thing every one should know is that if you want to get paid for airplay whether it is radio or internet radio your song must be listed with BMI...BMI pays you not the radio stations. BMI also pays you when your song is played on a juke box. BMI sends 3 day logs out twice a year to every radio station in the nation. When these logs are sent out is a secret. The radio stations themselves do not even know when they are getting them until they show up. When a song is played the disjockey logs when it is played, time/date..etc every time it is played in the 3 day logging period. Each radio station pays a premium as do juke box owners to BMI yearly and out of this money the writer not the performer unless he is the writer also gets payed...from BMI so unless you are a memeber of BMI you will not get paid nor should you ask to get payed. I am doing a radio Interview with Lisa's walk the talk show..which will be airing later this year and it will be a live broadcast on British Broadcasting System. I am not getting payed but since this show has a potential 8 million listenership I consider this a heck of an opertunity to plug my stuff and there by send any listeners to a site where they can buy my stuff. Europeans really like Yankee music and the market over there for indie's is a lot better than over here...just thought I would let you know how it works and any radio that would play my stuff without me paying them is welcome cause that is free advertising and if I have it listed with BMI and they happen to be doing logs during that rotation I GET PAYED!

Byron

That's the most rational comment I've heard so far

I'm usually okay with not making money from internet airplay so long as the broadcaster is not making money either. And even then, I might make an exception if all they have is a few Google Ads. However, I won't waive royalties if I sense there's a strong profit motive and the means to achieve it.

I really think a percentage-of-revenue share model is WAY better than a blanket royalty rate. There are way more people "broadcasting" today than there ever was before the internet. It doesn't make sense to charge someone like Kimberly the same rate as Yahoo! Music.

Hey guys!
In general, I think artists can (and should) always retain their rights to choose where their music gets played and under what terms. That's the whole concept with CD Baby's digital distribution service. For each kind of distribution opportunity, artists can choose to opt-in or NOT opt-in. It's up to each artist to "weigh" the benefits (one way or the other) according to their unique marketing needs and goals.

I've briefly researched some blogs I googled up, and here's a few tips I found for those wanting to get into the internet radio (webcasting/podcasting) business:

1. Don't forget licensing issues. Just because an artist or label allows you to use their copyrighted performance of the song doesn't mean you are in the clear. Don't forget about composer royalties, administered by ASCAP, BMI and SEASAC. Seeing "traditional" on a song credit in someone's liner notes doesn't necessarily mean you are in the clear, either. Best would be to use a composition by the artist, with acknowledgement of their giving both performance and composer rights, or their performing a song that is in the public domain.

2. Know your numbers, mainly how many people "tune in" to your podcasts, and be able to refer the artist to other artists who can testify to the effectiveness of your podcasts on their sales. Don't bother with bandwidth statistics and such. Most musicians and labels don't care how many gigabytes or terabytes of data you move each month. This will help both the artists and the potential advertisers have the right information to base their decisions on.

3. Discuss the technical aspects - what the bitrate of the podcast is going to be. While podcasters argue that the low bitrate (i.e., lower sound quality) is not conducive to piracy, some artists may object to the lower quality representations of their music and the subtleties that will be lost.

Sounds like a lot involved!
Personally my only experience is with setting up a few stations on SoundClick, but that's easy and anyone can do it for free. Probably NO money in it either, so it would have to be a "labor of love" just to promote indie music.

Michael

Kimberly,
I admire you for what you are trying to do for the Independent musician. I have been doing "Mellow Melodies with Goody" since 2005.
I have made alot of musician friends and enjoy helping every one of them get their music heard.

As a matter of fact, August 2nd celebrates the start of my 3rd year. Would you like to have reciprocating links on our sites so that when our listeners finish listening to our show, they can tune in to the other's?

I think if all of us that do this low-key thing together, we can really help the Indies. I'm looking forward to hearing back from you soon.

Kim,I don't recall naming you or your radio show,I just made some broad statements where many people seem to put little value on music.

Music is used by many to draw people into their business place and keep them there to spend money while they are there.Radio would not draw many people to listen if all they were broadcasting were ads.When someone gets a license to open a radio station,they see a way to make money,so they are willing to put up thousands of dollars to build a building,equip it,hire employees,pay for heat and light,etc.All this expense has to be paid from the advertising revenue,it might eat up 65 to 70 percent of their income,I'm sure they might like not to have to pay the extra 2 to 3 percent that will give them legal use of the music,but they pay it because their station will not draw listeners without it.

It's like a farmer that buys all the equipment to operate a farm,put up buildings to store his crop, then plows his field
and fertilizes it,then he expects to get his seed free,the very thing that will give him a crop so he can make a profit.The seed being the cheapest item he requires but without it,he is out of business.

Even churches must pay for the use of music if it is copyrighted. They have to buy a license from CCLI, CCLI pays this money out to copyright holders,the same way that BMI pays out the money that they collect from radio and other establishments that use music.

Kimberly

I am interested, but have no broadcast quality recordings,
what might be the draw for people to go to the station? I have music placed on diffrent stations (donated for the exposure) which is okay for me. how finished does it have to be? i have a home studio out here...

-steve

Don't forget about ASCAP and SESAC
Also, I think once you become a member and have your songs in their database you give them the right to collect the royalty. I am not sure you can waive that.
Internet airplay pays differently than terrestrial radio. I think the performers also get paid a royalty for internet airplay. I know the new laws include the performer.

I think internet airplay may be tracked in real time. IE. they have a record of each play every day and how many listeners per spin. Royalties are payed based on that. I THINK, lol.
Which is much more fair than terestrial radio where you might get plated a lot for several months but not during the 3 day survey.

You are right Bill,
but remember if you are getting national airplay chances are you will get payed every day if your song is in high or recurrent rotation because of the way that BMI staggers the logs there is the assurance of a BMI log if not more being done every day because of the ammount of radio stations in the nation.As to the internet thing I am not sure what the current laws are if any where BMI is concerned...and in order to belong to SESAC you have to be invited by a memeber whereas you can just join ASCAP and keep your dues up. I am not privy to the info on ASCAP or SESAC because I do not belong as yet but I do know about BMI because I (was) in radio for about 14 years and as far as i know it has not change much about the way they do things except the pay may have went up.

Hi all. I stumbled here while researching something else, and found this thread interesting. Kimberly, you have presented your case quite maturely in regards to your show. And I don't think anyone was bashing you, just explaining their own opinions as solidly as you were.

Personally, I'm a writer. Literary. In the beginnings of building my credits. Such has to be done (in my eyes) via submitting to literary journals for publication. MANY journals pay nothing, or nothing but 1 or 2 Copies of the publication in which you were published. Yes, the staff certainly receives payment through advertising and (albeit small) sales. The writers generally (unless published in the few literary big dogs), don't.

I don't have any problem with this. I'm not a famous writer. I haven't sold a novel. But getting credits via journals (short story or poetry) will help make a case for any talents I might or might not have when the time comes to submit something on a larger scale.

I understand the indie music industry is a dimension away from the small press literary world, however I just thought I'd shed a different light on it all. Good luck with your music show. I think it's a good thing!

The connection some people have made in this thread of musicians offering their music for free and needing their 'ego stroked' is ridiculous.

I currently offer my music for free because I want people to hear what I've written. I didn't do it for anyone's approval. If you like my music, you'll buy an eventual album. It's really simple.

To force everyone to pay for your music is short sighted.

I'm a publisher (not music, unfortunately) and a very large company wanted to promote one of my products. The catch was I had to give it away free to anyone they sent my way. Since I offer more than one product (and write more than one song... see where I'm going with this?) I thought the free people might like the quality and want to buy something else.

To my surprise, the sales of the item that I was giving away free, skyrocketed. Because they could buy it if they wanted to, many people did.

I don't see how music can be any different. I think it's really short-sighted not to see the benefit of free exposure. Exposure is how you get fans who will support you in the future.

Hoarding your craft like a dragon guarding a pot of gold is alien to me. Then again, I'm into marketing...

Evil,

It's not a direct comparison. The direct comparison would be if the other company was selling your product for full value, but not paying you anything. In your case, they aren't selling it and neither are you. It's a big distinction. Most artists are happy to have non-profit stations play their music free. But if a "for profit" station asks you to waive royalties, it changes the dynamic.

The other problem is that artists are slowly killing themselves commercially as a group. If you place no value on your work to a for profit radio station, then why should a retailer pay you? Why should iTunes pay you? Why should anyone? The answer is, the more musicians line up begging people to take their work for free, the less often anyone gets paid. Sure, a "star" can still make a living, but they became famous most likely NOT by giving away their music to small internet radio stations. They became famous because large, often multinational media conglomerates signed them to their label and spent millions in promotions and payola (legal and illegal) to get them airplay and make them famous.

People are buying less and less CD's. People are buying less and less concert tickets. The outdoor amphitheater Deer Creek in Indianapolis where all the major concerts are held is doing so poorly they sold it to a shopping mall developer and it will be bulldozed at the end of this season. So getting airplay is less and less likely to lead to CD or ticket sales.

People ARE buying more digital tracks, but in many cases when you look closely at it, they are simply replacing their CD catalogs and not buying new artist music.

I think all artists and writers should be free to give away their work, but they also should be allowed to protect from having it given away against their will. A station who asks artists and writers to waive their royalties will never be able to be competitive because they won't be playing the best music, but only that which they can get for free. That hardly makes for compelling radio.

Not to mention the fact that I personally don't think it is possible to actually do that.. the reason being that the new royalty goes to the musicians, not the writers as well as the person/company who owns the masters. Without a signed release from all parties involved (including studio session players, union engineers etc.) that royalty still must be paid. Like a music venue, if you make 1 single mistake on any song, you are legally obligated to pay that entire blanket fee. It seems unlikely a net radio station could keep track of every single musician who played on every single song every single time. Like most venues who feature live music, they will eventually mess up and when they do, they are liable for the entire blanket fee.

So how about those who want to "do away" with the blanket fee? The truth is that many artists/songwriters would LOVE to do away with that fee. If it was removed, then each radio station would be forced to negotiate a royalty for each and every song they played individually and if they didn't, they couldn't legally play the song. What that would mean is that Paul McCartney and the other Beatle families could offer their songs to the highest radio bidder. They could give exclusive right to say, Clear Channel, for a giant fee, to play their music and not allow competitors to do the same. Imagine the costs for other major artist catalogs. Labels would LOVE that. So would the artists and musicians. But it would make radio impossible. So, the government created the blanket fee so that for 1 fee, you can play any music you want in the collection of the PRO. That blanket fee protects the radio stations, NOT the artists/writers. The benefit that writers/artists get is two fold. One is that they get their music played and thus that expands their fan base. But that isn't the end. The other part of the benefit is that they get a small royalty from all monies collected. Believe me, if the fee didn't exist, the most popular artists would make 10-100-1000 times as much as they do now. Radio may complain about paying the fees, but without them they'd be out of business immediately.

And for the person who said you must be a BMI member.. that's only 1 of 3 songwriter PRO's. The musician PRO is Sound Exchange. It's a big distinction. All musicians should register with Sound Exchange.

Brian

Brian,

Do you have a link for Sound Exchange?? I tried doing a search and a lot of different links came up -- with the same name.

Thanks!

Emily
ASCAP

Emily,
This is their official web site:
http://www.soundexchange.com/

They're in Washington DC.
Phone: 202-640-585

It's a big site, so you'll have to spend some time to get familiar. Last year I used it to look up some relatively famous songs & artists and most them did appear!

Michael

JPF'rs. There may be a problem with Kimberly. There is another post regarding her being missing. Please check it out... maybe you can help.