4 ms·

I used to record Jools Holland onto VCR every week, and then make mix tapes of my favourites. I would happily pay 99p a track for my favourites - and feel like

by Ntrails 11y ago

I used to record Jools Holland onto VCR every week, and then make mix tapes of my favourites. I would happily pay 99p a track for my favourites - and feel like a winner. Simlarly with live lounge sessions. We get a selection of what some pratt at the BBC thinks were the best of the year in a compilation CD. WHY NOT JUST SELL THEM ALL? I have been bitching about this for years, how has it not been made a thing?

johneth 11y ago
I think the problem with music broadcasts (TV or radio) is that they'd need permission of the artists and/or publishers before they could sell it commercially. It's probably for similar reasons that they don't show all the Glastonbury stuff (mixed in with revenue sharing - some artists/publishers might want too much, for example): > "On occasion an act may not wish to be filmed or recorded. Artists may also agree to be recorded but only allow a limited number of songs to be aired. This could be for a number of reasons for instance: the quality of some parts of the performance, because they do not wish to broadcast new or unreleased material, or they do not want to broadcast their entire live set." I do agree that it'd be a good idea to do, though.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  I mean, obviously artists could opt out (and tracking them all down for back catalog perms would be a nightmare - I'm not without sympathy for the effort involved) but going forward could they really not set up a default agreement? The fact that they DO release some stuff commercially seems indicative it's entirely possible. Glasto is indeed another great example of audio tracks I'd gladly pay for - funnily enough though by the time the BBC takes it's coverage down some valiant internet person has stuck what I want up on torrents.
M2Ys4U 11y ago
Blame those that own the copyright (i.e. the labels). The list of what tracks can be used will change weekly, if not more often, and offering them for sale will be an even bigger headache than being able to play them on the TV/radio.

by Ntrails 11y ago

johneth 11y ago

I think the problem with music broadcasts (TV or radio) is that they'd need permission of the artists and/or publishers before they could sell it commercially. It's probably for similar reasons that they don't show all the Glastonbury stuff (mixed in with revenue sharing - some artists/publishers might want too much, for example): > "On occasion an act may not wish to be filmed or recorded. Artists may also agree to be recorded but only allow a limited number of songs to be aired. This could be for a number of reasons for instance: the quality of some parts of the performance, because they do not wish to broadcast new or unreleased material, or they do not want to broadcast their entire live set." I do agree that it'd be a good idea to do, though.

Ntrails 11y ago
I mean, obviously artists could opt out (and tracking them all down for back catalog perms would be a nightmare - I'm not without sympathy for the effort involved) but going forward could they really not set up a default agreement? The fact that they DO release some stuff commercially seems indicative it's entirely possible. Glasto is indeed another great example of audio tracks I'd gladly pay for - funnily enough though by the time the BBC takes it's coverage down some valiant internet person has stuck what I want up on torrents.

M2Ys4U 11y ago

Blame those that own the copyright (i.e. the labels). The list of what tracks can be used will change weekly, if not more often, and offering them for sale will be an even bigger headache than being able to play them on the TV/radio.