The Rest Is Entertainment - The Secret Tax on TV Gameshows
Episode Date: August 7, 2024Every prize on British telly is tax free, but this isn’t the case in the United States. Marina explains why the price isn’t always right when it comes to winning big. Can Lisa Nandy save Channel ...4? Richard explains what the new culture secretary must do to keep the creative industries alive. And why are pop songs getting shorter and shorter? Sign-up to The Rest Is Entertainment newsletter for recommendations - http://www.therestisentertainment.com Twitter: @restisents Instagram: @restisentertainment YouTube: @therestisentertainment Email: therestisentertainment@gmail.com Producers: Neil Fearn + Joey McCarthy Executive Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport 🌏 Get our exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ https://nordvpn.com/trie It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee! ✅ Redeem data in 1GB increments. Save by mixing to lower cost plan and supplementing with rolled data. Downgrades effective following month. Full terms at Sky.com/mobile. Fastest growing 2021 to 2023. Verify at sky.com/mobileclaims. For more information about how you can use Snapchat Family Centre to help your teenagers stay safe online visit https://parents.snapchat.com/en-GB/parental-controls Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Hello and welcome to this edition of the Restors Entertainment Questions Edition.
And I'm Maureen Hyde, I've remembered to say this week.
And I'm Richard Osmond.
Welcome to this question and answers edition.
Can I tell you what I think the issue is with the introduction?
Yes.
Why it trips you every time?
Yeah.
I think you say the word edition twice.
You say welcome to this edition of the questions edition.
There's a sort of synaptic short circuit.
I think if you were writing that you would cut out one of the editions.
If I was writing it.
Yeah, I was listening to the podcast last week and I thought, you know what, that's my note.
Okay, right.
Well, next week, it's such a work in progress that I introduced.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I love that it's, you know, see something different every time.
I've been doing it for a year or so.
It's not a year.
Yeah, a year or so.
We have lots and lots of great questions.
We have some any lots of great questions.
We have some any other business first.
You remember last week we were talking about toilet flushes for various reasons and we're
trying to work out the first ever toilet flush on television which I thought was step two
and some but we have a movie one here from Stephen Woodward.
Hi there, this is Stephen Woodward.
Hi Stephen.
I have my long suffering wife Emma to thank for this particular piece of trivia.
Hi Emma.
She was once a film and media lecturer and told me the first cinematic toilet flush was
in Psycho.
Long ago.
Long ago.
At one point Marion is shown flushing a toilet in the Bates Motel with its contents, pieces
of torn up note paper, fully visible.
Up until that point no flushing toilet had ever appeared in mainstream film and television
in the United States.
Well, I mean that now for me is the film's major innovation.
Yes, isn't it? So thank you Stephen Woodward but more importantly thank you Emma Woodward.
And indeed Alfred Hitchcock. And thank you to Alfred Hitchcock and thank you also to Janet Lee
and thank you also to Thomas Crapper without whom none of us would be here.
Everybody gets a shout out on this show. Shall I ask you a question? Please do.
This comes from, whoa, this is from Rowan
Strohmanger. That's an action hero name. Yeah Rowan Strohmanger has a question.
Rowan says, I think it's a lady or a gentleman, R-O-W-A-N, a lady I think. Could be either.
Could be either. Let's say lady, because it changes the voice I do it in. Wow, just calling it, are you?
Yes, exactly. In recent times... do you know what? I do it in my voice.
So I do it in my voice, because then it's gender neutral.
For so many reasons it would be best if you did it in your voice.
I wonder what country she's from.
Yeah.
Hold on, I think...
I'm just really trying to put you back onto our safest ground here.
I think she's finished.
No. Rowan asks, in recent times, songs, specifically pop rap,
have got progressively shorter.
Oh, she says have gotten progressively shorter
That's interesting, which means maybe American. Sometimes my children say that and I correct them. I like it. I know I like gotten
I think it's one of those words. I quite like to come into the English language. So we let's do a question
Let's do a question. Let's do a question
Ruan says in recent times songs specifically pop rap have gotten progressively shorter
Could you give context to why this is? Could you give what please? Context. Sorry I sounded
something different. Okay they have definitely definitely got shorter in
gotten shorter in the in the 50s and 60s you know you'd get those very short
songs of two and a half minutes and you hear things like Eddie Cochran and Buddy
Holly and they're really sort of tight, concise songs. But then it bloats, like many things
it bloats and I think they get to their longest, I did a little bit of research on this, they
get to their longest in the 90s where the average song length is something like four
minutes twenty. Originally, by the way, song lengths were how much would fit on one side
of a vinyl record without sort of too much compromising.
Yes, often the technology is why things are certain links.
And also advertising segments, news, radio, all these sort of things. No one really wants to hear
your seven minute epic which is why we get things like radio edits. But obviously when tapes and
CDs came along they could go longer. Oh hang on, The Beatles, Hey Jude is very long, it's about
seven minutes, but they were The Beatles and they could do literally anything they wanted at that point.
And also they've done a lot of short songs before that.
Yeah, and they were The Beatles, so they could do what they liked.
But nowadays it has become much shorter and it's quite interesting, if you look at sort
of like Taylor Swift's Speak Now, which I think came out in 2010, the songs are a whole
minute longer in that than they are on Midnights.
And that speaks of a general trend in if you're on Spotify by the way artists only get
royalties if the listener has stayed engaged basically listen to it for 30
seconds or more and also people want to clip them and they use one of the music
on TikTok and things like that and that is such a big part of artists promotion
now that the artists realize this and are not giving us their seven minute
epics any longer. So you're not gonna do a big long intro because you don't want
people want to switch off after 25 seconds, get straight into a hook.
You're quite right.
It starts, so many of these songs start with choruses, start with hooks.
And actually it's something you also see and bridges have sort of almost
disappeared because it's things where people think not a lot happens,
unless you're Taylor Swift and your bridges are amazing.
This is like the rest is engineering.
Yeah, it is.
Bridges have disappeared.
And so to some extent it's about attention, but you do also see it in films.
If you're watching a film, a sort of fun action comedy from the 80s, it takes a
long time to get going compared to if you're watching a Marvel film where you'll
have a massive sequence almost before the titles.
And so lots of things have had to work on hooking your attention in immediately.
And songs are just one of those things. Half of Spotify's songs last year in 2023 were
under three minutes and one of the big songs, Kilioti Poland, is about 80 odd
seconds and it's obviously been endlessly tick-tocked, endlessly sampled
for all sorts of little things, little viral bits of content. So the artists
realize this as well which is why they're sort of self-censoring in terms of their big epics.
But as so often, artistic things follow technical things and technological things.
If you can make a longer record and it makes you more money, then that's what you do.
Not because you want to make more money, but you can do.
And the second someone says, actually it's sort of better if you make this two minutes 30 rather than three minutes 30.
To a lot of genuinely creative people, that's quite a fun thing to be told.
So Eurovision, for example, the songs have to be three minutes and that's because, you know, you cut it for a TV show and it's so three minutes, but that's a creative thing
for people to do.
If things have to be certain lengths, creative people often quite like it.
Often it follows the technology.
And as you say, the Spotify thing of if people listen to 30 seconds of this, then you're
getting paid.
You're going to stick it all on up front.
Yeah. The worst thing ever happened this week. I'd forgotten. Tell me. If people listen to 30 seconds of this, then you're getting paid. You're going to stick it all on up front.
The worst thing ever happened this week, I'd forgotten.
Which is, I love The Night Manager, right?
The John Le Carre thing that was on BBC with Hugh Laurie and what have you.
Tom Hiddleston.
And I'd watched it four or five years ago.
Ingrid had not watched it.
I said, this is definitely one of those ones that I will watch again, because I absolutely
loved it.
So we were watching this thing and I thought, it starts really, I thought two things. I thought it starts really big. I mean the first
episode like a lot is happening. And I also thought it's great that they're not, and it's
very lecarious and it's not explaining a lot. Like, you know, Olivia Colman gets introduced.
We're not told who she is. We have to surmise who she is. And as we got towards the end,
I realized we were watching the last episode, not the first episode. And you know Ingo was really enjoying it and she's
like, God, they pack a lot into this episode, where's this going? And I was like, yeah,
yeah. And in my head I was thinking, yeah, I think this does happen. And then this is
the bit and then you sort of go back, like it's a year later and you know, and no, it
was, it was the, it was the last episode.
I love how this doesn't insult the audience.
Yeah, but it really wasn't. I really thought this, but no, it was the last episode. I love how this doesn't insult the audience. Yeah, but it really wasn't.
I really thought this was the final episode.
That's amazing, isn't it?
A lot of writers will tell you, a lot of writers' trick is,
think where you want your series to end or your episode to end,
and then just force yourself to make it miles better
by making that end of that one.
Yeah, but it was terrible because Ingrid's like,
oh great, let's just watch episode two immediately.
And I'm like, I have some bad news about episode two. And we can watch episode two, but it'll feel like a prequel.
And it'll be a lot more gently paced. But anyway, listen, it's an amazing one off last
episode. I will give it that.
This is quite an open ended one for you, Richard. Lisa Nandy, Tom Harbert writes of the Culture
Secretary, will Lisa Nandy save Channel 4?
Oh, that's a good question. Well, firstly, speaking on behalf of podcasters, welcome
Lisa Nandy. If you're the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, you are the
Secretary of State for podcasts, right?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
I mean, that's like your area.
Typically, the Culture Secretary would hate all the aspects of their brief and follow
the form book or would just, there would be something that they knew absolutely nothing about.
Exactly where she seems to actually quite like the media in various ways.
Well she saved Channel 4, it's an interesting question.
She does seem to quite like the media, yes.
And sport, so that's good.
And culture I guess.
It's a very good question.
I mean Channel 4 has to save itself for sure and Channel 4 know that and they save themselves
by making new shows and by finding new sources of revenue and by sort of increasing
eyes across various different bits of the media.
One thing she won't do is get in the way of that, I think.
And you know, they did have a tricky time under the Tory government because they were
constantly being threatened with privatisation.
I never bought that.
I always thought it was trolling.
I thought, you know, when Nadine Doris is saying we're going to privatise Channel 4,
I don't think you have the power or the will to do that when Nadine Doris is saying, I'm going to privatize Channel 4, I don't think you have the power or the will
to do that, Nadine Doris.
But if you're running Channel 4,
it's a clear and present danger,
and you do have to address it,
and it does destabilize people,
and it does destabilize the people who are working for you.
So will she save it?
I mean, they have to save themselves
by commissioning great shows,
but knowing that there's not an existential threat to them,
I think will be very, very helpful.
Certainly if they haven't saved themselves in three years, there will no longer be an
excuse. That is definitely the case. But I think, yeah, the climate where one imagines
that the Labour government will be sympathetic to drama makers and to independent producers
in Britain, which to be fair, the Tories were also, you know, there's lots of tax breaks.
I don't imagine she's about to stop them because that industry brings a huge amount of money in.
You know, my view on these things, I'm not sure anyone's going to save any of those linear channels.
You know, if we're talking about 15 years time, I'm not sure any of them exist in the way that they
currently do. Definitely run the best steam railway in the 1950s for sure. And, you know,
you could maximize your income from that, but it's not going to stop the electrification of the railways so you know I my view has
always been if you make content you're like someone who makes seats for trains
and so it doesn't matter to you if they're steam trains or if they're
electric trains and it's hard for someone like Channel 4 to break out of
being a linear television channel whatever digital strategy they have
they're still encumbered by their legacy and what they are. I think
it's hard for them to build that business. I think we're sort of in the era of managing
decline with the best will in the world. And if they manage it well, then we'll have a
lovely 15 years of great TV from the BBC and ITV and Channel 4. And if they manage it badly,
then we will have less. I don't think there's an awful lot that Lisa Nandi can do to change the viewing habits of a generation and to change the
spending habits of a generation of advertisers. If there is a lot of people want to hear from her.
Yes exactly. She's actually wasted in that particular role because she
doesn't have the power in that role to do a whole lot about that. Yeah so I
think all she can do is leave them be to get on with their own business plan,
which I think she will do.
So I think that's very good news for Channel 4.
But I think if we're thinking in 15 years time, the media landscape is going to be the
same.
I suspect that is not what is going to happen.
But you can definitely extend the life of Channel 4 and you can make some great TV shows
and you can add to the joy of British culture.
There's going to be a stop date to all of that stuff I hope that's not too much of a downer
not at all yeah not at all Vanessa Moritz has a question for you Marina she
asked why a movie trailer is being released earlier and earlier in recent
years F1 with Brad Pitt was 12 months before the show came out Joker folie
de six months before Beetlejuice Beetlejuice also 12 months before the show came out, Joker, Folly, Edur, six months before, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice also six months before.
Why are they being released so early these days?
There's a few answers to that.
The sort of basic one is hype.
All of those movies you've just mentioned,
all of those different studios really have spent
a lot of money on these and want and need them to be massive.
So there's a sort of thing that the longer people
have to wait, the more they want something. I don't know if that's necessarily true.
Theatrical audiences, people going out to the cinema, becoming smaller and smaller numbers.
So it takes longer to reach the amount of people you need to make something a big hit.
And you have to sort of start spreading it out because they're just not seeing as many films
as they used to. So you want that. We're still on the sort of downstream effects of the various
writers strikes. They won't make it feel like that. They'll still on the sort of downstream effects of the various writer strikes.
They won't make it feel like that. They'll have something out all the time. There is a hiatus
in big movies because there was both writers and the screen actors strike and they put
obviously a complete stop on production. So things are being introduced earlier and earlier.
Another reason is, in some ways, the most interesting reason is to do with marketing.
And we talked before about tracking and how tracking is the movies ways of
seeing, studios ways of seeing how their movies are going to open.
And often these are movies they spent a lot of money on.
To some extent, it will be a form of dynamic pricing, the dynamic cost,
the marketing. If they feel that Beetlejuice isn't getting enough purchase
and they want, I actually personally think Beetlejuice is going to be a big hit
because of General Ortega and it brings young audiences and whatever.
But guessing that engagement via tracking,
if people become aware of those movies,
which they might largely via trailers and cinemas
at that point, then you're gonna start being able
to see on the tracking, like,
are people mentioning this film spontaneously
in their socials?
Are they doing all these different things?
And then you can see where you might spend more
on marketing to ensure that your big film is a hit. In the old days with a
trailer there's only really two places to play it. You play it in the cinema with
other films which is good because you know it's a captive audience of people
who like watching films or you play it on television and the key to do that is
you play it maybe a week before because people want to book their tickets or
you play it when on opening day. Now people are watching trailers online. So the combined views on
YouTube of the three trailers they've had so far for Beetlejuice are 51
million. You know which is insane and something that you didn't used to be
able to do something you wouldn't have been able to have and almost more
importantly is the comments underneath. If you want to release you know the
Beetlejuice trailer six months ahead, you stick it on YouTube
and as you say, you can absolutely track how well it's doing.
You can look at every single comment, you get this incredible data six months out from
this movie coming out and then you absolutely just refine your message.
You see which bits people like, you can recut the trailer.
You are just doing all of your market research ahead of time, but they didn't used to be
able to do that because they could show it to a focus group
You know, that's something they could have done
But you're not getting a huge amount now whereas now you're getting this real-time stuff because putting out a trailer is not a bad thing
At any time you want people to see what it is
You've got ahead of you and all movies that you've got the footage for the trailer a long time before the movie comes out
Anyway that that hasn't changed but now you have this incredible opportunity where you can see this film so long in advance. It makes it feel, it gives it
a sort of an inevitability. Like with the Marvel Cinematic Universe that we talked about on Tuesday,
when you know a film is coming out in 2027, it's almost like the train is coming to the station.
Incredible resource now they have that they can put out a trailer and you can do their market
research for them in real time is something
They just didn't used to have and this is why you'll see the teaser trailer
Then you'll see a first official trailer second official trailer. They you know, they can't they all come in stages now
It's interesting. I was talking to director about this the other day who said on day one of shooting his film
He was told that he needed to provide some footage for the trailer
He was like what day one of the shoot was a very big sort of franchise movie
and had to provide on day one
so that they can already start working
and putting little bits of things out there.
They're starting so far in advance to get that sort of hype.
But because, and again, for another reason,
we say that we live in this quite siloed world
and it's quite possible that you might not hear about things
because your particular kind of atomized area
of the internet that talks about your interests aren't seeing them. So they want kind of saturation
as much as possible because they want everything to be a four quadrant movie if it possibly
can be.
Which as you say is young men, young women, older men, older women.
They want everything to appeal to everybody all the time.
Yeah and that side of the thing is fascinating because you see it in all sorts of areas now
that if you think that something is being trailed endlessly,
that says less about the thing and more about the media
that you consume.
Because I might think an entirely different thing is being,
I might think that walk-in baths are endlessly being advertised
because I watch Countdown.
If you see something doing endlessly,
it is not being marketed at you.
It is desperately trying to find people
who would not see this normally,
is trying to find each, which is why Coca-Cola is still advertised, because you just you need to keep
mopping up people and mopping up people. But yeah, I think the short answer is I think because they
can put the trailer out a year in advance now and they didn't used to be able to. Shall we go to
some adverts? Let's do that. Hello everybody, Tom Holland here, the co-host of The Rest Is History with some very, very
exciting news. Now, to celebrate this year's Olympic Games, which of course are being held
in Paris, we thought that we would dive into the story of another period when incredible
spectacles were being staged in the French capital to much bloodier
effect than anything we will see in the Olympics. And this is the story of the French Revolution.
Over the span of eight episodes running throughout the duration of the Olympics, we'll be looking
at the incredible life of Marie Antoinette, the storming of the Bastille, King Louis XVI's
attempted escape from Paris with the rest of the royal family, and many more seismic
events. So to hear our series on the French Revolution, simply search for the rest is history
wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back, everybody. Now, this is a bit of a follow up
to our question about Olympic or our discussion about Olympic commentators last week.
Aid Grayson says, I love watching sports I don't normally see
when the Olympics rolls around.
Last Q&A episode, you spoke about generalist commentators
and them being alongside a former athlete in said sport,
but how do commentators on events like skateboarding,
surfing or BMX, which have such niche tricks and phrases
go about making it easy to understand for people like me
who only catch it every four years?
Such a good question.
And I love, by the way, the Olympics having some of these sports in,
which they seem at first you think, oh, this is a novelty,
but actually you watch the BMX and the skateboarding.
They're brilliant. I love having those sports
because remember the X Games was huge for a while
and actually the Olympics seems to have drawn some of the energy of that.
The guys I absolutely love are Ed and Tim, who do the BMX and stuff.
They're so enthusiastic and actually are very, very good
at making you understand what's going on and making
you feel included. So we asked them personally how they go about exactly this. We asked this
exact question. How do you go about bringing people in and making these sports understandable
for people watching them for the first time and this is what they had to say.
Hello my name's Tim Warwood and this is... Ed Lee. And we are BBC Action Sports commentators.
We've both made a living out of translating the esoteric elements of action sports to
mainstream audiences.
It's a long craft, it takes a long time to get the hang of it and work out how you do
that and what works for people.
We started off in live so we would do a lot of snowboard and skate, BMX contests, demos, things like that. You have to explain these tricks
and you can see in real time on people's faces whether or not they're getting
what you're actually saying so you learn very quickly. One of the most amazing
elements of it is that you can treat it like a bedtime story for a sixth month
old. It doesn't matter what you say it's all about your pitch, your tone and your level of excitement. So it's backside 50-50 through the corner
there, frontside Smith setting up and then he's exploded out of that into a big
kickflip melon and you know you don't need to know what the trick is but you
know when it's good that way.
That's absolutely brilliant. Thank you so much to Tim and Ed. That's great, right?
I like that they often don't actually know the full detail. You can't possibly know some of the stuff.
You can't possibly know it and no one expects you to know the absolute full details.
It is so much better though when people understand some because honestly when they're just sitting
there going, wow, or did you see that? Yeah, I did see it. I'm watching at home. Can you tell me
something about it please? And there are commentators out there,
like, there couldn't be further from Ed and Tim,
who do give you very, very little, I find.
So it's the picture voice for a six month old.
Well, it can cover a multitude of sins, we should also say,
because I'll tell you, you never see Hazel Irvine do.
No, she doesn't need to.
She doesn't need to lose it, because she knows it all.
Yeah.
And she's got that great tone.
So I totally agree that the tone is very, very important.
As with anything in life, any form of writing or speaking, the tone is almost more important
than the substance.
I'm absolutely loving the BBC coverage of the Olympics.
The magic trick they're pulling off, which is incredibly impressive, is they don't have
a huge amount of the rights anymore.
No, Discovery have the big package.
Discovery have the big package.
Discovery have the big package.
So it still feels like they've got the rights to everything and they're able to show us
everything and you've got this incredible footage on iPlayer the whole time and they're
switching in between.
Very, very neat trick they're pulling off, which is I still feel like I'm watching all
of the Olympics.
I certainly feel like I'm watching everything where British medalists are involved or exciting
names and you know, the 100 meters final.
They're doing an amazing job, I think.
And what a group of presenters.
You've got Claire Borden, you've got Jeanette Quartier,
you've got Gabby Logan.
I mean, just like, just great, and the great experts.
I'll sit, listen to Michael Johnson all day long.
So I think it's been an absolute masterclass
in how to do something incredibly difficult
and make it look fairly simple.
Even though people will say, oh, why did you cut from this to that?
And why did you cut from that to that?
You think, well, because you have to.
Yeah.
And because we're not allowed to be on Six O'Clock on BBC Two.
We have to sort of change channels every now and again.
And like I was watching the final Andy Murray match, and it was at the same time as the
swimming final, and you think, oh, God, what do you do here?
Because everyone wants to watch both of these things and you know, you do have to navigate that.
If you had to sit down for one minute and work out that BBC schedule and work out what they had to do
and understand how they had to put that running order together. It's much harder than when in
2012 they had the red button for AppSeat. You could go to AppSeat everything because they had
everything. But they haven't had that in the last two games, I think.
And I think a lot of people don't know that.
And I think that's a testament to how well it's been put together.
Marina, I have a question from Oliver Needham.
Any questions?
Oliver Needham, yeah, you know what I mean.
Answers, Oliver Needham.
Listen, you know what I mean, Oliver, but thank you for your question.
Oliver asks, why are cash prizes tax-free in the UK? Oliver Needham. Listen, you know what I mean, Oliver, but thank you for your question. Oliver
asks, why are cash prizes tax free in the UK? Quizzes and competitions and things like
that. I believe there was something about there having to be skill involved to make
it not betting, but just texting a word to win doesn't appear to be a skill.
Yes. I think it's the gambling act of 2005 that says that there needs to be some element
of skill in
the question. If you were talking about this, it would be like, what podcast are you currently
listening to? The rest is entertainment, the rest is enlightenment or the rest is embarrassment.
But there has to be a reasonable assumption that some people will answer one of the wrong
ones. Now, if you've ever heard me do a top three in an eccentric order, then a number of people might write
in and say, it's the rest of his embarrassment. Surely, surely that is the name of this show.
It doesn't tend to be enforced. So our prizes, everything including the millionaire prize,
anything else is tax free, which makes you think, hang on, in other countries, can you
like win a car and have to pay 50% tax on it? The answer is yes, in the US, it is utterly brutal. Anything you win on any of their many
game shows is immediately taxable. Television show gives you a form as they're giving you the prize
of camera and they also send that form to the IRS. They know that you have won a car. And if
you can't pay the tax on it,
so some people, it's really common practice to say,
could I have, if not the cash value of this,
because then it's much easier to pay the tax,
to say, can I have half the cash value of this?
Because I honestly, so if they're giving you
some luxury holiday and you're like, well, hang on,
I'm going to actually end up having to pay $6,000
for whatever percentage of this luxury holiday, then can I not have it actually
please? If it's a non-cash prize, it's very problematic and some prizes remain totally
unclaimed in the event of actual winning them because people are told and they have this
whole chat when they're given the form and they think, actually it's too expensive for
me to have this prize, isn't that? Which is pretty awful. So it's quite nice that we have
that.
Yeah. So over here, it's always been the case. And you know, um, 15, 20 years ago,
a lot of the companies were getting involved in gaming and gambling that is,
you know, you'd have fixed odds games based on dealer, no deal and stuff like that.
And that you do get taxed on because it is entirely random. But yeah,
the second there's even a vague amount of skill. And as you say,
we once showed a picture of the planet Earth on Pointless
with the letter E underneath it and said, what planet is this? And it's called 91.
Showing a picture of planet Earth and saying, what is it, is a game of skill,
because some people will not get that right.
Or 9% of people. I mean, that is extraordinary. But every, all of these questions, when you think
this is so imbecilic, no one could possibly get this wrong, I'm afraid.
Anyone who produces those shares will tell you that many, many get it wrong.
That's the thing whenever you play games on your phone and there's all those adverts for
other games which are sort of strategy games or you know matching you know three symbols and stuff
like that and they deliberately play them badly while you're watching it for 30 seconds because
you go oh my god I could definitely do that I oh my god he's being an idiot because you go, Oh my God, I could definitely do that. Oh my God, he's being an idiot because you just those three together. You think I could definitely do that. Oh,
do we have time for one more? Because I like this one from Emily Barr. Emily says, I saw
Sophie Ellis Bexter at Tram Lines in Sheffield and she played various songs by other artists.
Can I tell a very quick Sophie Ellis Bexter story?
Please do halfway through the question.
I'm so sorry. Only because she turned on the Christmas lights in Chiswick a couple of years
ago and the mayor of Chiswick clearly didn't know who she was and introduced her as Sophie
Ellis and Bexter. Like it was a dog act. And so whenever she's on TV now we always say
oh Sophie Ellis and Bexter.
I love that also you attended, touching one of the lights.
Of course. Big fan. There's two people I'm a big fan of, Sophie Ellis and Bexter.
Yeah.
Sorry, Emily, to hide out your question.
And now the second half of Emily's question.
Yes, exactly.
She saw Sophie Ellis, Bexter and Bexter at Tram Lines in Sheffield play various songs
by other artists.
If an artist wants to cover someone else's songs, do they need to ask permission?
What happens if the original artist is dead?
Do they need to get permission from their estate?
Okay, well, I guess Emily, you're talking about live because that's how you saw her.
In general, if you're doing a performance of something live and it's not going to be recorded
and you're not going to publish it, then it's sort of fair game.
You can do any old covers you want, but the venue that you're doing it, it will need to have a PRS license.
Now these PRSs are performing rights organizations and they make sure that musicians get royalties, etc.
Now it's not a huge amount for a venue to have one every year. And if a venue suddenly says, oh, we don't want ours anymore, performing
rights organizations here in the United States are so hot on this, they will effectively
send out spies to say, yeah, I saw someone doing a steely dance on this. And apparently
you don't have a PRS license. So that's a bit weird, isn't it? So a venue has to pay
a certain amount a year and it's not a huge amount and they get a small amount per show and the artists get royalties. However, you are supposed to
report the performance, you are supposed to report a set list. By the way, even buskers
are supposed to do this to say, you know, when I was on the underground the other day,
I did whatever set list you did. Your busking license is much less and it's much smaller
and you'll get a smaller royalty. But it is all supposed to be covered by this.
You still get a lot for Wonderwall if it's all the buskers in Britain added together.
Oh yeah, I mean it's huge. In practice it often doesn't happen but you are supposed
to report that list.
But by and large you don't need permission to cover someone else's song. You obviously
have to pay but you don't need permission. Sometimes you need permission if you want
to change words or change lyrics and stuff like that. You obviously have to pay, but you don't need permission. Sometimes you need permission if you want to change words or change lyrics and stuff like that.
You then have to seek permission. By and large, you can record someone's song. So an example
would be Nirvana when they were at their absolute most massive and they did the unplugged concert,
which was absolutely huge and sold so many copies. And they did a cover of the Vaseline's
who are a very cool indie Glasgow band, Jesus Wants Me For A Sunbeam. They covered that because Kurt Cobain was a huge fan of the Vaseline's.
I can't tell you exactly how much the Vaseline's made from that, but it was an awful lot.
Probably as much as the Zutons made from Amy Winehouse doing Valerie.
So it's one of those things, if you record something and it's on an album, you do have
to pay a lot.
Once it's recorded, you're in a whole different kettle of fish, but if it's just live you can get away with more.
Yeah, you do it.
Sophie Ellis and Bexster are absolutely fine doing that, I would say.
But also part of the nature of live music is that you don't want to have to say to people ages in advance,
can you tell me the exact songs you'll be doing tonight in the exact order so that I can go to all the...
that's what the PRI's license is for, is to preserve some of that, you know, let's do this one tonight
in order that you can have that sort of spontaneity.
I think that's us done for another edition of the Question and Answers edition.
Yeah, you're right, I will modify next week.
But before then, we will have the main edition of the show, so please do join us.
We do, yeah, we will see you next Tuesday.
See you next Tuesday. See you next Tuesday.