A long overdue CRTC review of the Canadian content rules has begun. The outcome will affect music, radio, and both audio and video streaming.
Radio, for example, is working under many regulations that have been in place since 1971. There have been a few tweaks along the way, but no Cancon review has been done in the age of streaming. It’s time for a serious update.
Cancon has been both helpful and controversial, and it’s instructive to know a little of its history.
Before 1970, there wasn’t much of a music industry in Canada compared with many other countries. We had almost zero music infrastructure. Most record labels were branch-plant operations of foreign labels, while domestic companies were small and struggling. We didn’t have much in the way of recording studios, producers, promoters or managers.
Globally speaking, we were a musical backwater. Any Canadian artist who wanted to make it big knew they had to leave. Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Paul Anka, Leonard Cohen and other promising stars bolted for the United States.
But things had started to change within the culture. In 1965, we got our own flag, shrugging off an important part of British colonialism. Then came Expo 67 in Montreal, which had the interesting effect of raising our pride when it came to our culture. There were more discussions about what it meant to be Canadian. One point of agreement was that for a distinct Canadian identity to exist, Canadians needed to be able to tell their stories to each other.
One way to do that is through music. And if Canada was to ever produce its own Beatles, much work needed to be done.
After much lobbying, the Canadian content rules for radio went into effect on Jan. 18, 1971. The original demands was that 30 per cent of all music on the radio had to be of Canadian origin (more on that in a moment).
First, this was a cultural strategy that gave mandatory exposure for Canadian artists who made the grade. Second, this was an industrial strategy designed to create a domestic infrastructure of record labels, recording studios, promoters, venues, managers, national booking agencies — all those things that you need to support music on a nationwide scale. The radio’s needs created a demand. A new market was born.
Radio hated the new rules because initially, a lot of the music it was forced to play was objectively substandard compared with international releases. But over the next decade, we caught up. By the time the ’90s arrived, Canada had a robust domestic music scene and was exporting far more material to the rest of the world than a country of our population had a right to. Things were so good that Cancon levels for radio were boosted to 35 per cent. Some new radio stations promised 40 per cent.
Then the internet arrived. Traditional terrestrial radio stations were now in competition with the whole world, especially after streaming arrived in the late aughts. (TV, which also has its own Cancon rules, also faced increasing competition from American cable channels and streamers.) Yet the rules from 1971 remained unchanged.
There was a big push for reform in 2005, but all the suggestions put forward by the radio industry were either watered down or dismissed entirely. Meanwhile, the entertainment and media landscape continued to rapidly evolve.
There have been attempts to alter the status quo, most notably with the Online Streaming Act, otherwise known as Bill C-11, which wants streamers to pony up five per cent investment into Canadian culture once they do $25 million worth of business in the country. The streamers and major labels are vehemently against this. Meanwhile, Canadian radio continues to pump millions into Canadian talent development and promotion.
A starting point for these new hearings is modifying the bureaucratic definition of Cancon. As it stands, we use the MAPL system, which assigns a point to a song if (a) the music was written by a Canadian, (b) the artist is Canadian and (c) the lyrics are written by a Canadian.
The “P” in this system is problematic. It does not stand for “producer” like you’d expect. Instead, involves a convoluted issue involving a live recording made in Canada and then broadcast to the world.
There are many of us in the industry (including me) who want “P” to be converted to producer. Given the role a producer plays in the making of music, they deserve credit. Canada also has produced many, many superstar producers, including Bob Ezerin (Pink Floyd, Kiss, Alice Cooper), Bob Rock (Metallica, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi), Garth Richardson (Rage Against the Machine, Chevelle, Rise Against) and Gavin Brown (Three Days Grace, Billy Talent, Mother Mother). Shouldn’t their contributions be recognized as a part of a song’s Canadianness? I think so.
What else could be changed? What about giving extra credit to radio stations that go out on a limb by playing new, unfamiliar artists? Another option is to give classic rock and classic hits stations a break on their Cancon load. After all, they’re not making old music anymore, so to hit that 35 per cent quota, their playlists are filled with burned-out songs by the Guess Who, BTO, Rush, Neil Young and so on. Bill C-11 needs to be examined carefully so that terrestrial radio isn’t alone when it comes to financial support of Canadian music.
The outcome of this new two-week set of hearings got off to a rocky start last Tuesday when Netflix, Paramount and Apple all decided not to appear at the last minute. Music Canada, the lobby group for the major labels, is also on record as opposing much of what’s in Bill C-11.
If you’d like to view the hearings, which will continue for the rest of the month, you can watch them online.