The world officially declared a vampire, by order of the U.S. government.

Billy Corgan is used to being the baldest man in whatever room he's in. But when the Smashing Pumpkins frontman steps onto the floor of Congress, he's.... Well, yeah, he's still the baldest man.

Earlier today, Corgan, along with RIAA chairman and CEO Mitch Bainwol, spoke before the House Committee on the Judiciary during a hearing on the Performance Rights Act. The proposed law, which the RIAA is pushing, would require radio stations to pay royalties to the musicians who play on the songs they broadcast, as well as the songwriters. As the Chicago Sun-Times reports, internet, TV, and satellite broadcasters all currently have to pay royalties to musicians, but terrestrial radio stations only pay royalties to songwriters.

Of course, Corgan stands to make a pretty nice chunk of change if this law passes. He's already made plenty of money in royalties as a songwriter when his songs are played on the radio, but now he'd even make money when they play the Pumpkins' cover of "Landslide".

Speaking before Congress, Corgan had this to say: "The change to the law we are here to discuss only redresses an outmoded, unfair practice that favors one participant's needs over another. This legislation is simply a form of restoration to artists long overdue."

Also, kind of hilariously: "Ours is a business that always begins with the brilliance of the artists."





The Smashing Pumpkins website has a thorough account of Corgan's testimony, and Getty Images has some photos of Corgan looking mighty smoove. See below for the full transcript, which can also be found on the Smashing Pumpkins website:


I'd like to thank Chairman Conyers and the Committee for this opportunity to appear before you today about the Performance Rights Act. I'm here as a representative of the musicFIRST coalition, to give voice to fellow artists and musicians who have joined together to assert their right to be compensated for the airing of their musical performances on terrestrial radio.

Because of my experiences in the music business for over 20 years, I have a particular sensitivity when it comes to artists' rights, and who controls the distribution, and therefore, the worth of those rights. Like many of my peers, I come from a working-class background, beginning my musical journey playing in dingy bars and college lunchrooms. Being a performer requires countless hours of dedication to your craft. It is not an easy business to undertake, and for every success story, there are many who have not had the opportunities that I've had.

I was able to find an audience, in no small measure, because of the long support of my music by terrestrial radio. I am a big fan of radio, and am very interested in its continued health and well being. Terrestrial radio has helped me to discover many of the artists that became influential to my life and artistic pursuits. I by no means see them as the bad guy.

The change to the law we are here to discuss only redresses an outmoded, unfair practice that favors one participant's needs over another. This legislation is simply a form of restoration to artists long overdue.

The rights of any artist are often rife with vague distinctions and contradictions, as the worth of a creative endeavor cannot be calculated by any science. Works of art are judged subjectively, and if deemed good enough, plugged into a vast system that attempts to establish their mettle and eventually capitalize on that value. The debate over what any piece of art should command on an open market is as old as time itself.

As it stands currently, if you have written a song and you have the good fortune of being played on terrestrial radio, then you, as the author, are entitled to a fixed form of compensation as established by Congress. This compensation, of course, recognizes the unique contribution that the author has made to the creation of the song. Conversely, if you also happen to be a performer on that very same song, by law, terrestrial radio owes you no form of compensation at all. The decision behind this long-held inequity stems back to 1909 when radio was in its infancy, and since sound recordings had only recently come onto the market, they were not included. The old fashioned radio business has held onto this exemption for over 80 years -- a law made in a bygone era for a set of reasons long past.

This landmark exemption however stripped performers of their right to a free market evaluation of the value of their recorded works. From my perspective, this issue is one of fundamental fairness. If the performance of a song has value to a particular terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work.

Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid. These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them. Not every performer on a hit song is a big name, and they might not see the same windfall that a star might. One can't assume they participate in the merchandise or touring income that is linked to commercial radio success. Not everyone who hears a song on terrestrial radio buys a ticket or a t-shirt. Some listeners just listen, thereby rewarding only the station and their advertisers, and not performers themselves.

All areas of the modern music business are currently feeling the shifting tides as new models emerge and old ones are broken up. Ours is a business that always begins with the brilliance of the artists. Contrary to long-held myths, it does take money to create new music. As the traditional revenue streams have dried up, most notably in the overall decline of record sales, it has placed stress on who continues to benefit from the old models. The future demands new partnerships and a rethinking of long-held practices about how artists should be compensated for their music. The hallmark of any great entertainment career is sustainability. Recognizing both the significance of the author and performer in the music making process helps to create those future opportunities.

In closing, and with all due respect to those that oppose the passage of the Performance Rights Act, to classify this measure as a "tax" is an interesting choice of words. For who has been taxed more than the artists themselves? Artists have paid their dues, so to speak, to establish terrestrial radio as a great and dynamic medium. We must consider that, for many artists, the difference between receiving these resources is the difference between a life in music and a life out of music. Few could deny that when a classic performance is captured, forever frozen as a musical snapshot in time, generation after generation returns to these moments, each finding something a little different. Whether we are talking about Motown, Stax, Elvis, or Howling Wolf, when the public decides that a specific performance is worthy of their attention, then it seems only fitting that this little bit of magic as documented be recognized in the form of direct compensation for the artists and organizations that helped to create it.

I thank you for your time.

Most countries in the world EXCEPT the USA already pay this, I believe. If I'm right, it amounts to wage parity with artists overseas, I would expect.

i'm for advertisers paying artists instead of fans.

Hey, remember when bands and record labels were desperate enough to get their music on the radio and they were the ones that paid to get airplay?

Ok, so after reading the whole article and statement, the law they are trying to pass would pay money to all performers on a recorded song, not just the songwriters. So all members of The Who would get paid, not just Pete Townshend for example.

I get it, but I don't understand why it should be Congress who decides this. Why can't the royalties go to the songwriters and the songwriters pay the performers as seen fit? And if this passes, does the money the stations pay in royalties stay the same and just get divided up to more people or do they have to pay even more to cover the additional performers? Considering this is the RIAA behind this I'm guessing the latter. That could be devastating for the radio stations just like the increase in royalty fees killed off a lot of web radio stations.

Maybe instead of using The Who as an example I could have used pop singers who don't write their songs. That might have been more apt. But even still, why can't that be drawn up in the contracts between the performers and the songwriters. Congress doesn't need to set any regulations on that.

billy's fine with that because he recorded over iha's parts, so he gets his money

Relevance of radio and TV exposure being fairly quickly eroded, this would probably just help put an end to the mediums as influencers. However, it could set a precedence that would fuck up places like last.fm.

It says a lot about how you view your music when you stand up for something like this, already a millionaire.

I could see a lot of bands fighting over who played what!

I guess we'd finally find out if Jimmy Page really played the solo to "You really got me" or not. Ray Davies says his brother played it but his brother never disputes the notion that Jimmy played it which pisses off Ray...all very interesting.

I kind of agree that performers should be compensated in some way, but I don't know if this is the right time to be asking Congress to pay musicians for performances. There are larger problems on the surface right now.

What I am more concerned about is how much I want to cut up my Visa card these days. Thanks, Billy.

i'd take dave davies guitar work over jimmy's. i'd also take ray davies over both of them as musicians.

does anyone else think it would be a good idea for billy to get shot?

i can't even bring myself to listen to old sp stuff. ever since the so called reunion the guy just keeps getting more and more annoying.

It's about time Congress called him in and made him explain himself for these last records/tours/commercials.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

It was okay for them to play your somgs and promote your ablums while SP was worth a damn but now it is not? Without the radio playing your whiney shit you would be nothing Mr. Corgan.

All the people testifiying are a bunch of has-beens or people that have more luck than talent... They basically don't have a career ahead of them and they know that, that is why they want to cash in.

Billy Corgan Defends LiveNation/Ticketmaster Merger to Congress

Yesterday, we reported on Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan's trip to Congress to speak in favor of the Performance Rights Act. (If it passes, the act would award royalties to performers for terrestrial radio play; the way the law currently stands, only songwriters get those royalties.) Those pictures of Corgan up in front of the Committee on the Judiciary were pretty slick!

However, this wasn't Corgan's first interaction with Congress in the past few weeks. Looks like we've got a budding policy wonk on our hands.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times' Jim DeRogatis, in late Febraury, Corgan wrote a letter to several members of the Senate's Committee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights in favor of the proposed Ticketmaster/LiveNation merger, which is currently facing Congressional antitrust roadblocks. As DeRogatis points out, Corgan's manager, Irving Azoff, also happens to be the CEO of Ticketmaster. Sigh.

DeRogatis ran a copy of the letter on the Sun-Times' website yesterday. The letter, which starts with the fair-enough thesis that the record industry is irreparably broken, goes on to defend the merger in the vaguest possible terms: "This is a new model that puts power into the hands of the artist, creating a dynamic synergy that will inspire great works and attract healthy competition. The proposed merger you have before you helps create those opportunities by boldly addressing the complexity of the existing musical and economic landscapes." He also says, "The combination of these companies creates powerful tools for an independent artist to reach their fans in new and unprecedented ways, all the while restoring the power where it belongs." Um, no.

Here's the full text of the letter, via the Sun-Times:

Dear Chairmen Kohl & Leahy and Ranking Members Hatch & Specter:

The merger as proposed before you on the surface may seem to be too much power in the hands of the few, and I can understand the need for Congress to review this matter. Here I would hope that my 20 years in the recording and touring business will allow me some candid authority on these issues, and would help shed some light for you on some of the nuances that perhaps could easily get missed.

The 'system' that was once the modern record business, essentially ushered in with the meteoric rise of the Beatles, is now helplessly broken. And by almost every account available cannot be repaired. Personally I would add to that a healthy 'good riddance,' as the old system far too often took advantage of the artists as pawns while the power brokers colluded behind the scenes to control the existing markets. This control often saw the sacrificing of great careers to maintain that control. Look no further than the major record labels' intense fight to slow down the progress of Internet technologies that more readily brought music and video to the consumer because they couldn't completely control it. This disastrous decision on their part has destroyed the economic base of the recording industry. It is now a shadow of its former self.

Artists now find a heavy shift of emphasis to the live performance side, and this is where this merger finds its merit. The combination of these companies creates powerful tools for an independent artist to reach their fans in new and unprecedented ways, all the while restoring the power where it belongs. In today's ever changing world, the ability for artists to connect to their fans and stay connected is critical for the health of our industry. Without sustainable, consistent economic models upon which to make key decisions, it is both the music and the fans that suffer.

In short, we have a broken system. This is a new model that puts power into the hands of the artist, creating a dynamic synergy that will inspire great works and attract healthy competition. The proposed merger you have before you helps create those opportunities by boldly addressing the complexity of the existing musical and economic landscapes.

Billy Corgan

The Smashing Pumpkins

rat in a cage indeed

I've defended this new incarnation of the Pumpkins in the past, but this is just ridiculous. What a whore.

I just heard "Today" being used to sell Visa cards...

Way to go Billy. I had no idea someone could fail so hard.

they should release a record together (with Timbaland of course)

This is indefensible. Prick.