Venezuelan Radio Quotas
A Great Idea for Localities Everywhere
by Matthew Montfort
7/23/2005
The Venezuelan National Assembly recently passed a law requiring
that no less than 50 percent of all music played on the nation's
radio stations be Venezuelan. Of that, half must be classified
as "traditional."
I coined the term "world fusion music" and firmly believe in the
benefits of cross-cultural collaboration. I believe in freedom
of speech and a free media. But I firmly support this law. It
will help keep the seed material of Venezuelan music alive, and
it will help support local artists.
A July 19, 2005, article in the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Backers say the harps and bandolas that now resound through this
country of 25 million are playing the overture to a musical revolution.
"We've always had traditional Venezuelan records in stock, but
before a few months ago we never sold any -- not one," said Miguel
Angel Guada, manager of the Disco Center Superstore in one of
the capital's largest malls. "It was all Britney Spears, Backstreet
Boys and that sort of thing. But now I'd say one-third of our
business comes from Venezuelan artists, which is absolutely incredible."
The new law can make listening to the radio an adventure in dizzying
contrasts. One minute a disc jockey might spin Puerto Rico's Daddy
Yankee rapping about "Biggie and Pac," and the next minute it's
flutes and fiddles from the Andean highlands. Some Venezuelan
rock and pop artists have begun to record cover versions of traditional
songs to take advantage of the mandates. Almost all local artists,
regardless of age or genre, are reaping the rewards. (The original article on Venezuelan music quotas can be found
on SFGate.com):
Even though it would make it harder for me to get my own music
played all over the world (and most of my airplay income definitely
comes from outside the USA where there are still pockets of respect
for musicianship left), I think every country should have a similar
law to preserve traditions and support local musicians. While
the US music and media industry presents its opposition to such
laws in free speech/free media/free trade terms, the reason they
are against the Venezuelan law is it restricts their power and
makes it harder for them to monopolize music sales. But the Venezuelan
law doesn't prevent any type of music from being played on the
radio, it just gives equal time to local music.
The implementation of a similar law is especially important in
the USA, where radio stations owned by big media companies have
very narrow play lists that keep out the most creative musicians
and don't allow for local programming. For the United States,
I would suggest a very modest law requiring that, in exchange
for the use of the public airwaves, all radio stations be required
to fill at least 10% of their music programming with music made
in the local region, and fill an additional 10% with music performed
by musicians who are graduates of music schools or are acknowledged
masters of specific musical traditions. Imagine the change if
just 10% of the music played on the radio was made by artists
well trained in music!
This would insure that the best musicians in the world would get
at least some air time (virtuoso level musicians get almost no
airplay on US commercial stations now) and that local musicians
would finally have a small voice locally. This small change would
bring huge benefits. For the first time, most people would be
exposed to a few recordings by creative well-trained musicians,
a few examples of various musical traditions, and get to know
a few of their local musicians. This could eventually lead to
a situation where people are as proud of their local musicians
as they are of their local sports teams.
If that happens, the music industry would grow exponentially and
people would get much better music. This would help greatly with
the general state of culture in the USA, which the right wing
has been complaining about so loudly. Ironically for the right
wing, the way to better culture in the USA is not to merge church
and state while giving more power to corporations to exploit the
marketplace, but rather to require that public airwaves serve
all the public by presenting diverse points of view and cultural
experiences. The free market is excellent at getting individuals
what they desire and are willing to pay for, but not very good
at getting society what it needs.
Getting such a law passed in the USA in the current political
climate is a tall order. The music and broadcast industries would
lobby against it even though it would ultimately be in their best
interests, and there would be constitutional concerns based on
the flimsy but often winning legal argument that money is a form
of free speech. But these are not reasons to give up. If the public
demands diverse local programming, broadcasters will eventually
make some modest changes even in the absence of a law forcing
them to do so.