All Beatles. All the time. Updates on Apple and royalties?

[RadioCoug]

There are some things in life that are obvious. Many people on this board would prefer an All Beatles channel, than the all Elvis, or even the new Stones.
Many people ask, why isn't there an all Beatles Channel? It all comes down to greed. Apple just wants too much money for their songs. iTunes (Apple iPod) has the same problems. You can't download a Beatle song for .99. What I don't understand, is that Corporate will pay millions for Howard Stern, (which only is attractive to a small percentage of listeners), and refuses to pay top dollar for Beatles royalities? Or are they in negotiation?

Does anyone know the inside intel of the latest from Apple or Sirius regarding the rights and royalties to their music? And what about Michael Jackson, who owns the sheet music? Anyone who is connected, or an authority on this subject would be appreciated.

It's overwhelmingly evident that Apple is holding out. Anyone with knowledge?

 

[OldNumber7]

> Many people ask, why isn't there an all Beatles Channel? It
> all comes down to greed. Apple just wants too much money
> for their songs.

I'd be interested in hearing from someone closer to the inside, but I believe there are flaws in your analyisis.
1) The reason Sirius has an Elvis channel is because of a co-promotion deal with Graceland. 2) The reason Sirius has an all Stones channel is because of a co-promotion deal with the band timed for the album/world tour (and the temporary all Springsteen channel was a co-promote for the 30th anniversary of Born to Run). If there was something in it for Sirius, I suspect they'd already have an all Beatles channel.
2) The cost of broadcasting music is money paid to the publisher, not a record company. It doesn't matter if the tunes are all played all one channel, or many (as the Beatles' tunes already are on the 60s, Classic Vinyl, etc.).
In short, I don't see how programming a Beatles channel would COST Sirius anything more (assuming they also drop some other music channel); it seems to me it simply hasn't happened because there isn't anything in it for Sirius.

 

[robgrayson]

My take on it is that it's a lot easier to get permission from one estate than two estates and two living performers, plus all who got into the act along the way. Sirius had to get special permission to get around the restrictions regarding how-many-songs-in-a-row-by-one-artist you can broadcast digitally to pull off the Elvis and subsequent specialty artist channels. Even when they do the Beatle thing on 14, they have to play at least one solo artist mixed in. As observed, it helps when the artist (or estate) has a dog in the fight.
RG

 

[BRH]

> My take on it is that it's a lot easier to get permission
> from one estate than two estates and two living performers,
> plus all who got into the act along the way. Sirius had to
> get special permission to get around the restrictions
> regarding how-many-songs-in-a-row-by-one-artist you can
> broadcast digitally to pull off the Elvis and subsequent
> specialty artist channels. Even when they do the Beatle
> thing on 14, they have to play at least one solo artist
> mixed in. As observed, it helps when the artist (or estate)
> has a dog in the fight.
> RG
>
I've never heard of any restrictions like this. I used to work in broadcasting and as far as I know, as long as you pay your liscensing fees to the music publishing companies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.), you can play whatever you want, whenever. I've never heard of any restrictions about broadcasting only 1 artist or too many songs in a row by a single artist, etc. I don't think there would be a legal problem with Sirius doing an all Beatles channel, I just think it is a programming decision not to do it.

 

[Batfink]

> > My take on it is that it's a lot easier to get permission
> > from one estate than two estates and two living
> performers,
> > plus all who got into the act along the way. Sirius had
> to
> > get special permission to get around the restrictions
> > regarding how-many-songs-in-a-row-by-one-artist you can
> > broadcast digitally to pull off the Elvis and subsequent
> > specialty artist channels. Even when they do the Beatle
> > thing on 14, they have to play at least one solo artist
> > mixed in. As observed, it helps when the artist (or
> estate)
> > has a dog in the fight.
> > RG
> >
> I've never heard of any restrictions like this. I used to
> work in broadcasting and as far as I know, as long as you
> pay your liscensing fees to the music publishing companies
> (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.), you can play whatever you want,
> whenever. I've never heard of any restrictions about
> broadcasting only 1 artist or too many songs in a row by a
> single artist, etc. I don't think there would be a legal
> problem with Sirius doing an all Beatles channel, I just
> think it is a programming decision not to do it.
>


You are correct...Apple, Capitol,Yoko, etc., have no legal say in whether a station goes all-Beatles or not. People are confusing radio with downloading songs.

 

[RadioCoug]

Thanks to all for clearing this up....

I have been confused with downloading, as from what I understand Apple Records is difficult to deal with. I am actually surprised Sirius does not have an all Beatles channel, including Wings and the solo work from all four. This ageless music appears to be popular today, especially with the kids in their twenties and thirties. It would be interesting to find out the business case for not having a dedicated Beatles channel. If you do burn out, you come back in six months, and get your Beatles fix again. It's a never ending cycle with their music. It just never dies.

 

[Batfink]

Re: Thanks to all for clearing this up....

> I have been confused with downloading, as from what I
> understand Apple Records is difficult to deal with. I am
> actually surprised Sirius does not have an all Beatles
> channel, including Wings and the solo work from all four.
> This ageless music appears to be popular today, especially
> with the kids in their twenties and thirties. It would be
> interesting to find out the business case for not having a
> dedicated Beatles channel. If you do burn out, you come
> back in six months, and get your Beatles fix again. It's a
> never ending cycle with their music. It just never dies.
>

Regarding downloading Apple artists: Apple Corps has kept Beatles songs off the "downloading" market because they felt it would take revenue away from CD's. Their (IMO) misguided position may be changing...They recently made John Lennon's entire solo catalog available to most digital downloading services, including Napster and Real Rhapsody ... but not iTunes. After Apple Corps initiated name-infringement litigation in the early '90s, the two Apples reached an agreement that Apple would use their name only for computers and not music. With the current popularity of Apple's iTunes, the legal battle continues and iTunes still can't offer Lennon's songs.

 

[BRH]

Re: Thanks to all for clearing this up....

> > I have been confused with downloading, as from what I
> > understand Apple Records is difficult to deal with. I am
> > actually surprised Sirius does not have an all Beatles
> > channel, including Wings and the solo work from all four.
>
> > This ageless music appears to be popular today, especially
>
> > with the kids in their twenties and thirties. It would be
>
> > interesting to find out the business case for not having a
>
> > dedicated Beatles channel. If you do burn out, you come
> > back in six months, and get your Beatles fix again. It's
> a
> > never ending cycle with their music. It just never dies.
> >
I also would enjoy an all Beatles channel featuring the Fab 4 and their solo work as well. However, one reason that Sirius probably hasn't done this is that it doesn't have a current "tie-in" with anything that will bring listeners to Sirius. In the past, when Sirius has done "one artist" channels, it has always been as a tie-in with something that will gain exposure or marketing for Sirius radio. For example, "Elvis Radio" broadcasts from windowfront studios at Graceland in Memphis, which gives Sirius a ton of exposure daily from thousands of visitors. And both the Rolling Stones and the former Bruce Springsteen channels were done at times that coincided with national tours and huge album releases where Sirius was given prominent exposure as well. These types of channels seem to be based more on getting publicity and exposure for Sirius than filling a particular format hole. My guess is that there has been no Beatles channel because there is no real way to tie it into a place or event to gain exposure. I agree, though, as far as personal tastes, I'd certainly love a Beatles channel more than Elvis, the Stones, or Springsteen, but it's all about marketing, so I'm not holding my breath for one soon.

 

[robgrayson]

Re: Thanks to all for clearing this up....

Satellite radio and terrestrial radio come under different standards as far as "same artist" situations, whether from the RIAA or BMI/ASCAP. Terrestrial radio will be facing more of this in regard to their HD channels.
RG

 

[PatClark]

Re: Thanks to all for clearing this up....

Obviously its a programming choice on Sirius's end. And I, like many others, would love an all Beatles channel. And since the reunion tour was cancelled in 80' (insert rim shot) I dont see any big event that would warrant Sirius to jump on the all Beatles channel anytime soon.