Big Radio's Attacks on Me Aren't Surprising
I was surprised when Radio One's Cathy Hughes added my name to the list of African American artists and civil rights activists she's attacked in her vicious campaign against fairly compensating musicians for their work. Then again, since smearing African American leaders to protect her profits has become Ms. Hughes siren song, maybe I shouldn't be surprised at all.
Every time we buy a CD or download a song, the artist is paid for their work. You might not know that this isn't the case when a musician's work is played on the radio. That's because corporate radio CEOs like Cathy Hughes are exploiting a legal loophole that allows them to play these artists songs without paying them for their work.
Ms. Hughes is now very angry with me, other black recording artists, and civil rights leaders because we support the Performance Rights Act, which many now call the Civil Rights for Musicians Act. This bill, which was written by the Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressman John Conyers, closes the legal loophole the radio corporations and CEOs are using to ensure that African American artists receive fair pay for airplay.
In defending her refusal to fairly compensate the artists on whose back she earns her living, Ms. Hughes now claims poverty, which is pretty amazing considering Radio One owns 54 radio stations and reaped $316 million last year alone. She even paid her own son, Radio One CEO Alfred Liggins, a $10 million bonus. Far from a struggling company, Radio One sounds more like one of those Wall Street rip off firms where executives pay themselves big bonuses while they rip us off and throw their workers in the street.
If their profits and the bonuses Ms. Hughes has paid her son are any indicator, Radio One is hardly struggling. But there are small stations, especially gospel stations, in our communities that we love and that deserve our help. That's why the Civil Rights for Musicians Act protects these truly small radio stations while insisting even a big corporate radio firm like Radio One would only pay roughly what they earn off of about five commercials each day.
You can begin to understand Ms. Hughes' willingness to rip off black artists when you take a look at who she attacks and the kind of company she keeps. During the last presidential campaign she repeatedly attacked Barack Obama, calling him "a dazzling deception" and implied that we supported him because black people are easily fooled. She has even supported the current chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, who said he would attract more African Americans to his party by offering "fried chicken and potato salad." This is hardly a woman who is looking out for what's best for the African American community.
The struggling musicians who need the Civil Rights for Musicians Act don't want a handout from Cathy Hughes or Clear Channel or the National Association of Broadcasters, which is the mouthpiece of big -- largely white -- corporate radio. They just want to be paid for their work. This legislation would make sure that these artists are directly compensated, not the recording executives who may have stolen from them much as Ms. Hughes and Radio One steals from them now.
I am proud of my support for the Civil Rights for Musicians Act, even if it means suffering though the tirades of Ms. Hughes. I hope she understands that the struggle to pass the Civil Rights for Musicians Act isn't about us any more than Rosa Parks bravery was about getting a better seat on the bus.
Better women than Ms. Hughes have spent a lifetime toiling to ensure equal rights and economic opportunity for black Americans. There is nothing "stupid" about insisting that African American workers are paid for their labor. The Civil Rights for Musicians Act is about economic justice for African American artists. It's about what's right. And it's about time.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I wonder if I would ever have heard of Ms. Warwick if this piece of legislation were in place in the 1960's?
I am all for the recording artist getting their far share but if this legislation goes into place, I dare say artist like Ms. Warwick would get even less airplay because many radio stations would have to stop playing music. This is not a black and white issue. The issue at hand is whether the artist want the general public
exposed to their music. Without exposure, the average person may not be aware of the artist work, new or older recordings. When I was growing up, I listened to the radio to find out what music was out there. It helped me decide what I wanted to buy. If radio is forced to pay for every song they play, many stations will be forced to change their format. The real culprit is not radio but the illegal downloads from the internet. Most of the music downloads, 95%, are illegal. Then there is the music industry itself, that still trys to pay the artist as little as possible. I sell music for a living and believe me, this legislation work hurt the artist rather than help them. Last of all, please let's leave race out of this. Musician's of all races would be affected by a law that would limit air play of their work.
As a real small town, independent, one station radio owner, I can say this:
I pay $2k in fees now to BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. I do not make millions off of advertising. I am in a non-rated market.
If this legislation is passed, I will forced to either go dark or change my format to talk radio.
Yes, the small amount of fees would do that to my station. It would also do that to thousands of other small town, independently owned stations.
There would be no discrimination in this fee. It would effect minority owned, independently owned stations as well.
What a shame.
I feel for you guys and I don't think it's right at all Chris!!!
I fail to see how this is an African-American issue. For example, if Tuck and Patty get played on the radio, is Dionne Warwick only concerned with Patty (who's black) getting paid, but not Tuck (who's white)?
Not only does it make no sense to frame this as a racial issue, it's downright counterproductive. The issue should be framed strictly as an Artist-versus-Corporate Behemoth.
It is not being framed as a racial issue. If you would but just pay attention, you would see she is responding to attempts from an African American radio station owner to garner support in the African American community.
In a backward way this IS a racial issue, but not for the reason Ms. Warwick or others would have you believe. Passage of this bill will only hurt black artists and black owned radio stations, it is an unrefutable economic fact. How can higher radio "fees" help the stations or the artists? Less airplay=less money for artists, fewer non "corporate" stations=less airplay for lesser known artists, more "corporate" stations= less choice for consumers and fewer outlets for all artists to get there product out to the public, no public visibility=no money, period. These facts can not be disputed. So yes this is indeed a racial issue and this bill is bad for black artists and black businesses.
Not just an African-American issue. The Civil Rights movement was about poor people, minorities and women, not just black people. Ms. Warwick is responding to an ad hominem attack by another black woman who happens to make a lot (two, three lots) of money by programming black artists on her chain of radio stations (while appearing to have a distrurbingly patronizing attitude toward her audience.) However you feel about The Act, Ms. Hughes, et. al. can afford it.
Ms. Warwick,
I am the first one to react when a racist says or does something to offend any minority group.
But I'm not seeing the racial issue here.
What you have written smacks of exclusion, rather than inclusion. At no point in your article do you mention Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian, or any other artists of ANY other ethnicity. Why? Are there not thousands of non-African American artists who suffer the same slight about which you have written? Are African-American artists the ONLY group not being compensated for radio airplay?
No.
This is decidedly NOT a racial issue, and your use of race to try and make your point is terribly disingenuous.
When you're prepared to speak for ALL musical artists, of ALL persuasions, come back the Huffington Post and make your case again.
It is implied in this article that the Civil Rights for Musicians Act benefits only black artists.
Are white artists whose music is played on the radio to remain unpaid?
Thanks for posting a story on this proposed legislation, which I had not heard of. Any chance of a follow up story laying out in more detail the provisions of the Civil Rights Act for Musicians Act, and the likely benefits and costs?
As a purveyor of business and legal acumen, Ms. Warwick is without a doubt one of the greatest singers in the world. I have to disagree with her on this issue. We already have enough artists who fail to understand that airplay drives record sales. If the artists had taken up their case with the record companies, who really ripped them off, we would not have to put up with the current round of copyright and royalty garbage that passes for law in this country (and is beginning to infect the world), and everyone except the real bottom feeders (Record Companies, RIAA, et al) would have been a lot happier. By pushing this legislation, which has nothing to do with civil rights and won't really help any musicians, despite the name, you are not only taking the heat off the real culprits, but helping them make their case that every instance of airplay everywhere should put another dollar in their already bulging pockets.
This is how I understand it, too. A number of radio stations that serve our community are going to be shut down if that bill passes. In Chicago, we had a holy fit when TJMS was taken abruptly off of V103. Tom Joyner is now on a station that has intermittent reception issues. Hopefully, they'll hash this out.
I completely agree with you Osusuki!! This will hurt many radio stations that aren't mega big time ones and especially small independent radio and black radio!!
I have no doubt that african-american musicians are being ripped off. But my question is, how is this exclusive to african-americans? I was under the impression the major record companies were cheerfully ripping off any musicians they can.
yes and no. It's a matter of proportion and as they say, african americans have historically been suspiciously deceived by record companies since the 1930's. When you think that the roots of American music are in jazz, and black music. And a lot of black musicians recorded music over the last 70 years and a lot have been disproportionally forgotten or shown the door, maybe addressing it will eventually help any musician in the future.
Don't just make things up. This is a struggle between the capitalists (record companies,music publishers) and workers (musicians,songwriters) not blacks and whites.
It is not exclusive to african-americans, though the article attempts to make it a racial issue because they can get more sympathy that way.
Furthermore, half of the royalty money would go straight into record company coffers as opposed to the artists it purports to assist. The fact that those coffers are predominantly overseas is an economic factor that should cause great concern.
I'm really annoyed at the posters bashing Dionne Warwick. Why are Americans such creeps when it comes to fairness and justice?
It's called debating to eventually get to the truth and a reasonable remedy. Without debate they'd be even more creeps. I think people on here are debating more than bashing. We bash Madonna -that's a different story. That's ok. That's necessary.
To have a debate, you must have people with honest differences. Unlike you, I think people are bashing rather than debating. I stand by my point, America doesn't repsect people who struggle for dignity. These troglodytes on these boards think that somehow this is unAmerican.
As a former Union Musician, and someone that has has enjoyed your music for decades I just hope you do well. I'm a libertarian, so I believe you always own your music.
Yeah, try that argument in court! You can go pay your rent with your ideology.
Dear Ms. Warwick !
No matter how hard you try, you continue to be insignificant !
Next !
Ms. Dionne Warwick, while I agree with you that people should be paid for their continued work and for the continued profits they make for corporations, there are two strong points that Cathy Hughes makes:
Point #1 " If an artist is penniless, it's because the record company screwed them over with a terrible deal, not the radio stations"
Point#2 Martha Reeves and the Vandellas and Dionne Warwick aren't going to get a penny because....Nobody is playing them"
Therefore, don't you think it is more prudent and "JUST" that legislation be drafted to establish an endowment of for Older and past artists who are in need.
And looking towards the future, don't you think it is more prudent that New Artist get reliable representation and solicitors (not lawyers) that will help them negotiate better deals with record Companies or tutor them on gross, net and profits.
Because in the end, there are issues of past fairness and future opportunity, that are greater than Cathy Hughes or Dionne Warwick. Thank you.
There is such an endowment. It's Nordhoff Robbins. It provides help for musicians who need it. Guess who puts the lion's share of the money into that charity? Record companies and successful performing artists. Artists do gigs all the time with the proceeds going to the charity and there are a number of CDs and DVDs on the market where the charity gets all the proceeds. Look out for them in the shops if you want to help artists in need.
MAPP is another great organization but why do people have to be down and out before they get their due? I have been signed to major record and publishing deals and it used to kill me that I was living on the road or on friends couches while thousands of non artists made comfortable livings in the music business. All Warwick is saying is lets give the creators of the music a chance to "wet our beaks".
Do you know the way to San Jose?
Some artists when I inquire send downloads to me for free, and later ask me whether I enjoy the music. Once I responded by buying the entire catalog, AND leading an effort to make sure as much of their music was available in the US as possible.
Enough arguing over royalties and piracy already.
Corporations are ruining there reputations by the continued personal attacks on people like Warwick. How slimy of them.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
