My question is, if SX is trying to reach artists and create awareness, why not take out ads on sites like Myspace and run commercials in shows like The Highway Girl? Artists talk and it seems to me that SX isn’t doing much to reach the UNSIGNED artist community. I can’t believe that after five years of being around, most artists I interview still haven’t heard of SX. Not only indie artists, but artists like Juliette Lewis and Martha Wainwright.

SX always touts that they’re sending out letters and doing promotion to spread the word. Isn’t it time to face the fact that whatever SX is doing isn’t reaching artists. Change your strategy!

If so, where?

“A group of college webcasters, for example, were concerned that they couldn’t meet reporting requirements during the summer months, when they’re un- or under-staffed. We made an agreement just for them to meet those needs.”

SRSLY? Because from what I recall, at the CRB’s asking, college webcasters pointed out that what SoundExchange wanted was literally impossible to provide – no matter what the season. This ping-pong’d around in CRB filings as each side submitted their comments – college stations saying roughly ‘we’re still trying to comply as it is with the current requirements, and the system is broken by design – otherwise there wouldn’t be a huge backlog of unpaid artists – and here you want to raise the bar on this again? No way.’

I paraphrase, but it’s all there in the CRB filings for anybody who wants to kill a few hours reading it all.

And the SE deals? They solve some problems, for some people, until 2015 or 2016. I think my favorites are the ones with the clause that prohibits anybody who takes a deal from participating in any other royalty rate setting proceedings. AWESOME.

I come from college radio. So no matter how many times I hear somebody try and cram “We’re artist advocates” into their press release I just shake my head. College radio disproportionally supports the smaller, unknown, indie artists and labels, period. College radio people are people who work for free, with no budget, people who one-on-one with the artists on a daily basis to get them airplay. The kind of people who let the bands crash on their floors, and who trickle into LPFM’s and internet and community stations because the “big” stations are all locked up. But, hey, you read those CRB filings and it’s all their fault nobody’s getting paid. We’re all thieves who steal the hard work and flour and threads or whatever other BS metaphor you want to insert here for “playing other people’s music and giving them free publicity”. It’s never, ever because the entire process is broken by design now, is it?

(And seriously? You were unable to **post a list to your website** since 2006? And this was because … ?)

Most of the stations I deal with even agreed with the royalty concept. Didn’t have a problem with it if they could actually see their money making it into the artist’s hands. FWIW, once my station started paying and reporting to SoundExchange we pointed *hundreds* of the artists towards SE to get their slice of the money we sent in. Why the zero-budget college station with no fulltime employees had to
explain to the artists what Soundexchange was, yeah – you tell me, but we did it for years. And then we started reading the unpaid artist lists. And watching the recordkeeping requirements creep upwards. And hearing from the artists who were actually trying to get their
checks, trying to decipher wtf they were looking at. And then we got to see SoundExchange and the RIAA create MusicFIRST, and see that whole mess unfold. Again, surprise, surprise, according to MF it was all radio’s fault, and artists are starving in the streets because we were all filthy music thieves who wanted to steal somebody’s hard earned royalties.

(AND lets not forget that whole WICB/Aimee Mann’s ‘blacklisting’ thing. Because right around that period in time, when it came down to it there was enough money and effort to create MusicFIRST and have a paid MusicFIRST / SoundExchange lobbyist ask the FCC to investigate some pissant 100-watt college station in the middle of nowhere because their GM posted something stupid to an Aimee Mann message board. Right? But there certainly wasn’t enough money and effort to find and pay somebody like Sir Mix-a-Lot. And at that
point, seriously, it’s just a huge joke now. Your system is broken. Start over.)

So, yeah. That’s what I think of when I think of SoundExchange. Us, bending over backwards to redo the way we programmed and played our music so we could keep working SE records, plus scraping up a couple hundred bucks for yearly SE payments, while watching SE literally sit on millions and pay lobbyists to run MF for them.

I really, truly wish I could say all this reverbnation/cdbaby stuff is a step in the right direction for getting people paid. But until the world sees the final numbers behind it, it’s all just another stupid press release.

p.s. For anybody else who really cares about radio stations and what this SE mess does to them, go read “Angst in studios over webcasting pact” over on current.org

Happy post-holiday to you and yours. I’m on the same page with your statements about mistrust, and the test of this dialogue. I understand your skepticism, and the skepticism of those reading these posts, and I know I’m responsible for some of it. I’m doing what I can to change the parts that I can change where we’re in agreement.

In return – I would ask that sideshows, like me posting “anonymously” (which as I’ve pointed out by quoting my original post, didn’t happen, and only serves to pre-bias this community against me and Soundexchange) drop out of this conversation and others in the future.

As I’ve expressed before, it’s my feeling that Soundexchange should be moving into a new period, now that rates are largely set for a time going forward – a period where the organization engages in a much more direct and responsive fashion with the outside world; with its licensees, with its constituencies, and with the public at large. Many others share my opinion on this, and I am hopeful that we’ll see a good dialogue start here. I would only add that there’s going to be a natural inclination for others who haven’t been writing here to be cautious at first, because in the same way that there’s a level of skepticism in this community regarding the accuracy of what’s posted here, there’s a similar level of skepticism on the other side that this community is looking for real solutions, and not just to bash the organization.

I would like to think we’re presented with an opportunity to change that – I’m now trying to do my part to be part of the solution, and I’m making my opinions known within Soundexchange, not just on this forum. I am keeping a journal of ideas that I think are interesting or that bear further investigation, gleaned from this forum and from other forums such as Pho.

Laura made an offer above to have interested people visit Soundexchange. You, and others, should consider doing this. I find that face to face interaction does much to address mistrust, and it’s a good way to measure people up. If this winds up happening, I’d make an effort to be there too.

Regarding the RIAA comments – myself, Rich Bengloff, and Tom Silverman occupy the independent label seats. I know people from the RIAA, and am friends with some of them, even if I do disagree personally with some of the organization’s policies and approaches. I’m not a member, I don’t attend their meetings, they don’t share strategies with me.

While it’s no doubt true that the RIAA’s influence helped put me into the spot I’m in – after all, I wasn’t able to get on to the Board without being voted in by other board members – I would say personally that my position on the board had more to do with the profile of the label I represent, and also with the record that I established, while directly employed at that label, of addressing industry-wide issues. Those efforts are what originally brought me into contact with Soundexchange. I don’t view the fact that RIAA members voted for my board membership as compromising to my core principles. I spend no more time contemplating the RIAA’s reaction to an issue I feel strongly about than I do any other subgroup of the board.

Rich Bengloff I give very high marks, and he certainly is not in the pocket of the RIAA.

What you say about Tom Silverman is undeniable – he is indeed on the RIAA Board of Directors. Nonetheless, I don’t know of many independent label execs who are more engaged with the independent community than Tom is, and I find his voice to be a reasonable and valuable one on any number of issues, and I don’t find him to be unduly swayed by his RIAA membership.

You asked for my honest opinions, there they are.

You ask me to “accept what everyone outside Soundexchange already recognizes; the interests of the RIAA labels do not always coincide with the interests of artists, or with the interest of independent labels”. I agree, wholeheartedly, with that statement, and I have for the entire time I’ve been on the board. No disagreement there, and there never has been. However, I would say that the interests of the RIAA labels *do* sometimes coincide with the interests of artists and independent labels, and I work with individual members to find those intersections. There are more of them than you would think. Where there is disagreement, there’s horse trading – I may support a particular policy or initiative, that doesn’t negatively impact my constituency, in return for a “yes” vote on something that’s important to me. That is basic politics.

As far as the composition and accountability of the artist board – I’ll state again that, as an independent label rep, it’s not really my place to be fighting this fight. I will go so far as to say I understand your position. But I will add to that – I have very close relationships with many of the artist reps, being an ex-artist manager myself, and I see them regularly stand up and fight for issues that *are* important to the artist community as a whole, such as the issue I’m very much currently engaged on – metadata review and overall systems analysis, with the express intent to increase and improve the payouts of monies due to rightsholders.

OK, enough from me. Over and out for the rest of the holidays.

x -dh

My full response to Laura is coming in a couple days.

As to the posts you are responding to, you are reaping what SoundExchange has sown in terms of distrust. That’s not going away simply because you say you are willing to talk. Your own history, of promising to engage and then refusing to, is not the kind of thing that trust is built on. SoundExchange has always had a problem distinguishing between talking about doing something and actually doing it, and you’ve been guilty of it in the past. You shouldn’t be surprised if we start out skeptical. The burden is on you and Laura to overcome what SoundExchange has done. While I appreciate your attempt to keep the constructive tone, we should start with the understanding that a dialogue is not the same thing as taking turns issuing press releases. We’ll see if Laura actually wants to engage on the issues I raised with you, or if it is going to be more of the same.

And by “more of the same,” I refer directly to your repeated insistence that “12 seats on an 18-seat board . . . belong to either independent labels or artists…NOT the RIAA.”

Those seats “belong” to the entity that put people in them. They no more belong to the people who sit there than a dog belongs to the fleas who hitch a ride on it. No artists chose any of their “representatives.”

No “artist representative” (with the possible exception of the two union reps) is accountable to artists for their actions in the board room. No artist representative makes the slightest effort to reach out to the artist community at large to either explain what they’re doing or to seek advice. And, to be perfectly blunt, no artist representative will be

And as for your “independent label” representative, one of the three, Tommy Silverman, not only sits on the SoundExchange board, he also sits on the RIAA Board of Directors. Are you going to seriously argue that out of the entire universe of independent labels, they had to seat someone who sits on their own board to represent the independents?

I realize it is very important to you to assert your independence from the RIAA, but beyond your words, there’s just no evidence of that independence, and plenty of evidence (in the presence of Silverman) that SoundExchange is giving just as much lip service to the concept of independent labels as it is to artists, and you appear to insist on singing right from the RIAA hymnal.

I think you have to accept what everyone outside SoundExchange already recognizes; the interests of the RIAA labels do not always coincide with the interests of artists, or with the interests of independent labels. You also have to accept the reality that there is no single viewpoint for artists and that SoundExchange purporting to speak for the entire artist community only accentuates the disconnection between SoundExchange and reality.

And that, Dick, is going to be the real test of this “dialogue.” Is there going to be evidence to back up what you and Laura say, or is everyone simply supposed to believe what you say because you say it? I hope you understand by now that if we are supposed to trust you, that SoundExchange, through its lack of transparency and outright dissembling, doesn’t come into this “dialogue” with any earned trust. You and Laura are going to have to respond to questions, and your answers have to make sense based on what we know. The two previous comments simply reflect the skepticism that SoundExchange has earned by its prior conduct in regard to communication, and, as promising as the idea of real dialogue is, it remains only a promise until you actually come across with answers to the questions that are asked. Be honest, be forthright, and, most importantly, be responsive, and I’m sure you will see a change in attitude here.

Well, now you *can* speak to Soundexchange. What would you like to ask them?

The start of the post above suggests, once again, that my original post that started all this was “anonymous”. This has gone on forever, and I’ve responded to it before, but I wish we’d get past this so it doesn’t keep re-appearing. An anonymous post is one where the person does not identify him/herself *at all*. In my browser, the two first responses above are anonymous posts…I have no idea who wrote them. My original post, some number of years ago, had this in the second paragraph:

“How do I know, you ask? Because I’m a Soundexchange board member. I don’t represent the RIAA – I hold the small independent seat on the board, which is one of 12 seats on an 18-seat board that belong to either independent labels or artists…NOT the RIAA.”

Is that anonymous? Sure, I didn’t post my name (which no one knew anyway, at that point), but the statement above told everyone exactly who I was.

You’re correct, Jon, that I apologized many moons later, and I’m glad I did finally apologize for the attack and for the mistakes I made in posting, and sorry it took so long, but you are incorrect that I originally posted anonymously. The implication at the start of this post is that I was not willing to let anyone know who I was in my original post. I clearly identified myself as the holder of the small independent seat on the Soundexchange board, and anyone with a web browser could (and several did) go to the SX website check to see who I was.

To me, this kind of ongoing assertion is a sideshow that just sets a negative tone that makes it harder to have a real dialogue.

Also – maybe I’m stepping out too far on the limb – but I don’t think my conversation with Fred has been very acerbic lately. I think it’s been pretty productive, and that’s encouraging to me.

Let’s make this green shoot of a dialogue count for something.