Lazy shortcuts that sound bad to listeners

[radiofan2023]

Sometimes you don't have the time nor luxury to set up a way of tapping a cell phone, especially when an unexpected, but important call comes your way. I still don't see what running and gunning by having to hold a cell phone up to a mic for something unexpected is such a sin.

I’m not talking about putting a call on the air from the mayor during an emergency, I understand a situation like that.

I’m talking about playing a sound bite/clip off of Twitter or another site. And some of the podcasts/stations that do this know better, or they could learn how to do it in a way that would sound better for the listener. That’s why I call it lazy. It’s the audio difference between playing a song on the phone to your friend by putting it up to your smart speaker, versus sending them a youtube/Spotify/etc. link to the song.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I agree with radiofan in principle. If you're going to do something, do it right.

However, playing someone else's video or audio during your show isn't kosher for copyright reasons. The answer isn't to make the audio quality better, it is to not do it in the first place.

The PD/Engineer know this, so they didn't provide a means for the talent to play things off YouTube/TikTok/whatever.

 

[fybush]

Almost 30 years ago at a very large market all-news radio station, I recall one of our best reporters running into the newsroom with sound from a breaking story. Did we spend the extra time to ingest his tape into our shiny new digital playback system? We did not - he went straight into the booth, held the speaker of his Marantz cassette deck up to the mic, released the pause button, and it sounded quite adequate.

That reporter will be inducted into the state broadcasters' hall of fame next month, and very rightly so.

 

[TheBigA]

However, playing someone else's video or audio during your show isn't kosher for copyright reasons. The answer isn't to make the audio quality better, it is to not do it in the first place.

Sometimes the bad quality is for a reason, and the reason is copyright. Such as when an artist is in the studio doing a radio interview, and wants to sneak peak a song without allowing anyone to actually air it. So the artist plays :10 of a studio demo off the phone just to make a point, and then move on. That's not a lazy shortcut. That's the artist protecting his copyright.

I had this conversation with someone at YouTube about why they don't allow downloads of their videos (as is allowed at SoundCloud) and the reason is copyright.

 

[radiofan2023]

I agree with radiofan in principle. If you're going to do something, do it right.

However, playing someone else's video or audio during your show isn't kosher for copyright reasons. The answer isn't to make the audio quality better, it is to not do it in the first place.

The PD/Engineer know this, so they didn't provide a means for the talent to play things off YouTube/TikTok/whatever.

For the show I’m talking about, they’re playing publicly available clips from interviews with sports players and managers and then discussing them, so if push came to shove they’d probably argue it falls within fair use.

 

[cc333]

playing someone else's video or audio during your show isn't kosher for copyright reasons.

Isn't ASCAP/BMI/etc. supposed to cover that to some extent?

Since I'm here, I have a question, if I might: I was told that when some material (say a band member posts a video of their band performing a new song – which hasn't been copyrighted yet – in a studio) gets posted to Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc, it constitutes a first release, and the person or entity posting said material relinquishes their rights to it, thereby making it the property of the service they're posting it to. Is this correct?

I realize this is a radio industry business discussion more than a music industry business one, but the two are related?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Isn't ASCAP/BMI/etc. supposed to cover that to some extent?

Only if it is something they have the ability to license.

If a jock goes to a nightclub and records a thing from a local (unsigned) band on his phone, and later plays it on the air, that will be unlicensed, because that band doesn't have an agreement with any of the rights organizations.

And obviously they have nothing to do with talk programs.

Since I'm here, I have a question, if I might: I was told that when some material (say a band member posts a video of their band performing a new song – which hasn't been copyrighted yet – in a studio) gets posted to Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc, it constitutes a first release, and the person or entity posting said material relinquishes their rights to it, thereby making it the property of the service they're posting it to. Is this correct?

No. This is a false premise. In the US, the work is immediately copyrighted, the minute the band finishes playing it. That was a change in the copyright statues in the 1970s (not certain on the year), so you might have seen this in an older reference.

Most online video services receive a perpetual non-exclusive no-cost license under their terms of service (basically, they don't have to pay a royalty every time they serve the video to a customer). However, that copyright is still owned by the uploader.

 

[TheBigA]

Isn't ASCAP/BMI/etc. supposed to cover that to some extent?

The specific example being discussed isn't music. Interview material is covered by copyright, and the only license is with stations that have an agreement for that use. 'Fair use' was brought up, but there are limits to the length of the clip, and the source must be credited.

ASCAP & BMI only license music publishing.

 

[cc333]

I see, OK. That was obsolete/misunderstood information on my part, then.

Good to know!

c

 

[Kelly A]

Which may be why I'm turned off by calling this 'lazy shortcuts.' There was a similar thread about 'crutch phrases.' When you're in the heat of the moment, live on the air, you don't always have the time to even think about what you're doing. It's all instinct. To have instinct then branded as being lazy is an insult. It's easy for people in the armchair to become judgmental. I do it to. But I know why I do what I do, and it's not laziness. It's about reacting to a situation as best as you can at the time. Afterwards, there's time for post-mortems and woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Exactly. 99.9% of the listening public could care less about the details of how one gets content on the air. As long as it's intelligible, and useful to the listener, you're good. The assumption that somehow doing what it takes is technically "lazy" or lacking professionalism, amounts to nothing more than petulant, nitpicking by people who don't actually do this sort of work anyway.

 

[Miss Tuned]

As if starting the newscast at precisely the top of the hour makes any difference today!

Nearly every system today can record a feed and play it later... whether that is a few minutes or much longer.

About 10-15 years ago nearly every station took some news feed or other from satellite (in the UK, it was IRN/Sky). You had to be dead-on the hour, your backtiming had to be spot on or you'd end up cutting a song short or having to fill with waffle. Nowadays, the news is delivered by FTP and playout systems ingest that hour's bulletin automatically, and it plays out as close to the top of the hour as it can.

Roll to Me by Del Amitri gets far less airplay as a result.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>someone telling a cohost to look something up
At our college station we had a community member on for 15 years until he passed on at age 49; supported local bands, a real character both on and off the air..not too internet inclined--he would go on air and ask listeners "can someone call and let me know if the Red Sox won last night?"

I gently said, uh, we're supposed to be the ones who know that and tell our listeners.
Didn't buy a paper and couldn't be troubled to type sports.yahoo.com on the computer (he had no smartphone)

 

[radiofan2023]

>>someone telling a cohost to look something up
At our college station we had a community member on for 15 years until he passed on at age 49; supported local bands, a real character both on and off the air..not too internet inclined--he would go on air and ask listeners "can someone call and let me know if the Red Sox won last night?"

I gently said, uh, we're supposed to be the ones who know that and tell our listeners.
Didn't buy a paper and couldn't be troubled to type sports.yahoo.com on the computer (he had no smartphone)

Good Lord

 

[radiofan2023]

Exactly. 99.9% of the listening public could care less about the details of how one gets content on the air. As long as it's intelligible, and useful to the listener, you're good. The assumption that somehow doing what it takes is technically "lazy" or lacking professionalism, amounts to nothing more than petulant, nitpicking by people who don't actually do this sort of work anyway.

Playing something from a phone is sometimes less intelligible than if it was played through the board. And like I said before - I've played stuff through a board off a phone before, so I know it's possible. That's the reason that people not doing it that way bothers me as a listener, because I know there's a way to do it that would sound better than a phone speaker held up to a microphone.

 

[Kelly A]

Playing something from a phone is sometimes less intelligible than if it was played through the board. And like I said before - I've played stuff through a board off a phone before, so I know it's possible. That's the reason that people not doing it that way bothers me as a listener, because I know there's a way to do it that would sound better than a phone speaker held up to a microphone.

But you're a radio nerd, not an actual listener. Just because you care, doesn't mean the vast majority does.

 

[Miss Tuned]

Speaking as someone who was previously management at a community radio station, I would never allow anyone's phone or personal device anywhere near the studio desk. Too many stations have been rapped because a volunteer decided to play a song that wasn't on the playout system, but hey, it's on YouTube. (Normally, it's "my friend texted in and requested it".) Cue four minutes of mother🤬ing hip-hop and a mean letter from the powers that be.

Paid staff, you'd hope would be more sensible, but that's a big assumption.

 

[radiofan2023]

But you're a radio nerd, not an actual listener. Just because you care, doesn't mean the vast majority does.

They would, if they could hear the difference in audio quality.

 

[radiofan2023]

Speaking as someone who was previously management at a community radio station, I would never allow anyone's phone or personal device anywhere near the studio desk. Too many stations have been rapped because a volunteer decided to play a song that wasn't on the playout system, but hey, it's on YouTube. (Normally, it's "my friend texted in and requested it".) Cue four minutes of mother🤬ing hip-hop and a mean letter from the powers that be.

Paid staff, you'd hope would be more sensible, but that's a big assumption.

What is the system like there compared to the US - are there tiers and warnings, then fines, or not?