Harold Bradley

Re: 30 Music Square West
Fact v. Fiction
Dear Nashville,
We write to you today with an eye toward history—in fact, several generations of music history—beginning with our forebears (and architects of the “Nashville sound”) Chet Atkins and Owen and Harold Bradley.
These families have a longstanding commitment to Music City. Owen and Harold Bradley built their first studio in 1952, one at the corner of 2nd and Lindsley and the other in Hillsboro Village. But the Quonset Hut is where it all started. With no money in their pockets, Owen borrowed $15,000 against his insurance, and Harold agreed to work for free for ten years…and with that bold move, the Bradley brothers helped establish Nashville as Music City, U.S.A., and kept the music from moving to Jim Beck’s studio in Dallas.
The brothers erected the foundation for that storied Nashville sound in a squat little house on 16th Avenue. They stuck on a surplus Army quonset hut, assembled an “A-Team” of session players (the Nashville Cats), and reimagined country music as something bigger…and more marketable. By the time Brenda Lee recorded “I’m Sorry” and Patsy Cline channeled “Crazy” at the Quonset Hut, a new industry had emerged.
In the 1950s and 60s, anybody who wanted to be a part of that big new sound came to Nashville, because the Quonset Hut and RCA Studio B were producing it. These studios are where the Nashville sound was created and where the classic hits were recorded— which is why they are worthy of being called historic. Thanks to generous donations and investments by the Maddox family, Mike Curb, and the Bradleys (who bought and preserved Studio B equipment and sold it at cost to the Country Music Hall of Fame), those early, important studios still exist for students and visitors to enjoy.
What makes a place historic? The architecture of the Nashville sound was never of brick and mortar. Certainly, there are old studio spaces that, in our imaginations, ring with sonic magic; but in truth, it’s not the room; it’s the music. Billy Swan recorded his hit song “I Can Help” in Chip Young’s house. Should we force the owner of that house to register it as a historic landmark? Joan Baez, Dan Fogelberg, and Neil Young recorded hits in Quadrafonic Studios. Jimmy Buffett recorded Margaritaville there, yet Quadrafonic was sold without protest.
Of the three men who built 30 Music Square West, one of them is still living. Harold Bradley worked in that room as much or more than anyone. He knows the history of the building. He knows who recorded there. Elvis was not on this list. Elvis In Nashville, Don Cusic’s definitive book on Elvis’ time in Music City, confirms Mr. Bradley’s memory. Elvis Presley never recorded in that building.
Mr. Atkins and the Bradleys built 30 Music Square West in 1965 for RCA Studio A as an inducement to keep the music group in Nashville. The Bradley-Atkins play worked: RCA rented the 30 Music Square West offices and studio for 25 years. Nostalgia wasn’t a factor. This was business. When Chet Atkins and Owen and Harold Bradley built 30 Music Square West, Owen said, “One day we might not have anything, but if we buy this property and build this office building, we can at least have something to sell.” It was an investment in their futures.
Mr. Atkins and the Bradley family listed 30 Music Square West for sale 24 years ago, just after RCA moved out. They’ve been trying to sell it ever since. Mr. Folds leased space in the building about 12 years ago on a ninety-day lease. That ninety-day lease has been extended nearly 50 times, with the anticipation that someone might want to buy the building.
The building is now, finally, under contract for sale to Bravo Development. Mr. Folds, who has no ownership interest in the building, has made an impassioned plea to “Save Studio A” as a historic landmark. (He’s now asking, hyperbolically, to “Save Music Row.”)
Historically, Metro Council has been hesitant to grant restrictive overlays without the consent of the land owner. When a tenant, with no ownership in the property, requests restrictions to a property without the owners’ consent, he effectively hijacks the owners’ original risk and the possibility of a good return on their investment. The Atkins and Bradley families have skin in the game as property owners, and Mr. Folds would ask them to just walk away.
An overlay for the entire area would be a downzoning of the worst order, diminishing value almost immediately, and potentially stymieing future creative endeavors. Such restrictions would likely prevent two brothers from slapping a Quonset hut on an old house and trying something new.
Music City isn’t about making a perfect room, or hanging just the right baffling. Turns out, the architecture of Nashville’s evolving sound is a synergy of creative energy. That’s still here, and it has nothing to do with this building.
Sincerely,
Harold Bradley,
The Owen Bradley Family
The Chet Atkins Family Trust

Folds’ response reads:

I would agree that ‘Nashville’s evolving sound is a synergy of creative energy.’ As I said before, I believe that our music heritage should be protected and preserved. It’s up to our city and business leaders – working alongside the people who make and support our local music scene – to find the right balance between progress and preservation.
But as those folks weigh in on what’s best to do, I hope they recognize from a musician’s perspective that great spaces like historic Studio A – the only such space left in the world with its unique sonic and acoustic design – are integral ingredients in the recipe that fuels our ‘synergy of creative energy.’ It’s frankly a testament to the genius of both Owen Bradley and Chet Atkins that both historic Studio A and B are still state-of-the-art. These two spaces and their approaches to acoustics have stood the test of time. We are grateful that the current building owners have allowed musicians like me to work with and collaborate with some of the greatest artists of our generation to keep these spaces alive and busy. If we didn’t have these and other uniquely Nashville music assets, in time I believe we would cease to be relevant to current and future generations of music makers.

Folds is currently on tour in Europe.

After hearing impassioned arguments from songwriters, publishers, performing rights organizations, digital radio representatives and other members of the music industry, the US Department of Justice is inviting additional public input. The department asks songwriters, composers, licensees, and service providers, to provide information and/or comments relevant to whether the BMI and ASCAP consent decrees continue to protect competition.
The deadline to receive comments is Aug. 6, 2014.
Specifically, comments and information are requested for the following questions:

• Do the Consent Decrees continue to serve important competitive purposes today? Why or why not? Are there provisions that are no longer necessary to protect competition? Are there provisions that are ineffective in protecting competition?
• What, if any, modifications to the Consent Decrees would enhance competition and efficiency?
• Do differences between the two Consent Decrees adversely affect competition?
• How easy or difficult is it to acquire in a useful format the contents of ASCAP’s or BMI’s repertory? How, if at all, does the current degree of repertory transparency impact competition? Are modifications of the transparency requirements in the Consent Decrees warranted, and if so, why?
• Should the Consent Decrees be modified to allow rights holders to permit ASCAP or BMI to license their performance rights to some music users but not others? If such partial or limited grants of licensing rights to ASCAP and BMI are allowed, should there be limits on how such grants are structured?
• Should the rate-making function currently performed by the rate court be changed to a system of mandatory arbitration? What procedures should be considered to expedite resolution of fee disputes? When should the payment of interim fees begin and how should they be set?
• Should the Consent Decrees be modified to permit rights holders to grant ASCAP and BMI rights in addition to “rights of public performance”?

All comments should be submitted by email to ASCAP-BMI-decree-review@usdoj.gov and will be posted in their entirety for public review at justice.gov. Information that parties wish to keep confidential should not be included in their comments.
Comments may also be sent, preferably by courier or overnight service, to the following address:
Chief, Litigation III Section
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
450 5th Street NW, Suite 4000
Washington, DC 20001