SXM launches Beatles channel (18) May 18

https://radioinsight.com/headlines/117695/siriusxm-launches-bealtes-channel/

XM/S's lineup page says 18 is limited run channels but Beatles Ch will be permanent

raccoonradio said:

https://radioinsight.com/headlines/117695/siriusxm-launches-bealtes-channel/

XM/S's lineup page says 18 is limited run channels but Beatles Ch will be permanent

Click to expand...

Curious to see whether the permanent channel is one that can be received by all, or if it will be in the "2.0" range to push subscribers into buying new radios. Hope it's the former. The 2.0 push has seen a couple of channels I enjoyed taken off the legacy receivers and put in the expanded range, making me wonder whether "1.0" will eventually be SiriusXM's equivalent of basic cable.

Probably for all like Elvis channel

raccoonradio said:

Probably for all like Elvis channel

Click to expand...

That's what I'd expect. It's not clear who's paying for this new channel. I would think SiriusXM, although with the Beatles fading from youth-driven terrestrial radio, maybe it's a pay-to-play channel. Either way, I expect that both sides of the transaction want the channel available to the entire subscriber base, even if SXM is trying to nudge people toward newer radios and/or listening through the mobile app.

CTListener said:

maybe it's a pay-to-play channel.

Click to expand...

Pretty much all of the single artist channels are paid for in some way by the labels. The entire recorded history of the Beatles is on Capitol, and they have a lot to push this summer.

Ten years ago, this would have been on FM. Not any more.

CTListener said:

Curious to see whether the permanent channel is one that can be received by all,
or if it will be in the "2.0" range to push subscribers into buying new radios.
...me wonder whether "1.0" will eventually be SiriusXM's equivalent of basic cable.

Click to expand...

Channel numbers as low as 18 are 1.0, also, they currently have promos running 24/7 in the 1.0 mode.
The most popular channels are 1.0. Currently, 2.0 channels are the ones that they "hide in the corner".
SiriusXM has no incentive to "push" anyone to purchase radios that they subsidized.
No one has heard of SiriusXM having any plan to charge a higher monthly rate for 2.0 channels.
They purpose is to have a more efficient use of bandwidth,
especially after they stop simulcasting the channels on to systems.
When that happens, their effective bandwidth will increase from 12½MHz to 25MHz.

The channel began today, but I slept through it.
I will check it as soon as I get in my car.

However,
I just stumbled across this modern Brazillian cover band last night.
The Zoom Beatles are good, I mean they are really very good.
Plus, they are all over Google searches and YouTube.

I listened to the launch yesterday, and it didn't exactly blow me away. To be sure, I'm glad to see the channel. But the first hour or so was one depressing track after another.
Why start off with the "bringdowns"? Most of the Beatles catalog is positive and upbeat. Why not start off on a happy "feel good" note?

cyberdad said:

I listened to the launch yesterday, and it didn't exactly blow me away. To be sure, I'm glad to see the channel. But the first hour or so was one depressing track after another.
Why start off with the "bringdowns"? Most of the Beatles catalog is positive and upbeat. Why not start off on a happy "feel good" note?

Click to expand...

I had to make a 3-hour drive this morning, so I listened to about 2 hours of the Beatles Channel. I liked it, but there sure seemed to be a lot of live, recent McCartney, in declining vocal form (although his performance of "She's Leaving Home" transcended the shortcomings, IMO). I heard a nice mix of uptempo and downtempo cuts, along with plenty of post-Beatles cuts and a few "influences" (like Gene Vincent) and cover versions well known (Wilson Pickett's "Hey Jude") and less known (Jennifer Hudson's "Let It Be"). Probably too many deeper cuts to attract much of a casual audience, but I think there are sufficient fanatic Beatles buffs to make the channel successful without fine-tuning it to play more ultra-familiar hits.Still, when the only song played in 2 hours with George Harrison singing lead was "Blue Jay Way" -- and that sampling included no Harrison post-Beatles cuts at all -- an argument could be made that the rotation already needs adjustment.

Update: Car radio was still set to the Beatles Channel when I got out of work around 10:45 tonight. What did I hear? More live Paul, of course, this time "Things We Said Today." I had a ballgame to listen to, so that was all I heard.

I guess it makes sense that there's far more live McCartney out there than live Lennon or Harrison, and who really wants to hear a lot of live Ringo even if a lot of it exists? Still, it's hard to figure why this material takes up so much of the channel's rotation.

CTListener said:

Still, it's hard to figure why this material takes up so much of the channel's rotation.

Click to expand...

Here's my theory: The live stuff is post-1972, thus covered under the current digital royalty. The original of that song is pre-1972, so not covered.

Plus the fact that Paul has been on a world tour for the past few years, so playing live Paul promotes the tour.

TheBigA said:

Here's my theory: The live stuff is post-1972, thus covered under the current digital royalty. The original of that song is pre-1972, so not covered.

Plus the fact that Paul has been on a world tour for the past few years, so playing live Paul promotes the tour.

Click to expand...

Probably the latter. Plenty of Beatles originals are getting played. Even with all the live Paul, the originals still make up the majority of songs played, including the originals of the Beatles numbers Paul does in concert.

For the most part I'm enjoying the Beatles channel. I like the segments where they flashback to the artists that influenced the group such as Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Fats Domino, etc.

Live recordings are usually inferior to the studio recordings. They should use them sparingly. I forgot how much mediocre stuff there was during the solo years. Hopefully they will cut back on the mono stuff,with the exception of the first four albums. Stereo sounds so much better. I do enjoy soings that influenced the group. Great hearing Lonnie Donnigan. Thursday Mary Wells "My Guy" was played. That was a hit in 1964, The Beatles have been together for four years. Hardly an influence on the group. Playing an old Miracles song would have been a much better choice,

benale said:

Live recordings are usually inferior to the studio recordings.

Click to expand...

That was especially true of a brutal live take of "Band on the Run" I heard earlier today. Reminded me of some of the low-quality live gigs that get played on the Springsteen and Grateful Dead channels occasionally. There's no historical value in any post-Beatles concert recording of Paul McCartney. He has toured frequently for the past four decades.

benale said:

Thursday Mary Wells "My Guy" was played. That was a hit in 1964, The Beatles have been together for four years. Hardly an influence on the group. Playing an old Miracles song would have been a much better choice,

Click to expand...

She wasn't an influence. She was one of only 3 women to ever open for The Beatles. That's the significance. This song was a Top 5 in the UK.

TheBigA said:

She wasn't an influence. She was one of only 3 women to ever open for The Beatles. That's the significance. This song was a Top 5 in the UK.

Click to expand...

The Ronettes were among the acts opening for them in Boston on Aug. 18, 1966. That's three women right there.

Stupidest thing heard so far... here is an group that was influenced by The Beatles.... and they play an Aerosmith cover of Helter Skelter.

Will someone explain to me how the Beatles influenced Aerosmith..... I mean I am pushing 60, I am from Boston, I'm pretty familiar with Aerosmith, and outside of their appearance in the 70's remake of Sgt Pepper ( which should be banned from the planet) there is IMHO no connection.

Now if you wanted to play a song from Brad Delp & Beatlejuice ( google it) and say Brad was influenced, you'd be right as the Beatles DID influence him greatly and I can tell you that as fact as I heard it right from his own mouth one night in a club where he was playing....

Virtually every Rock musician or band was influenced by the Beatles
in some way. That doesn't mean that every band should attempt
covering Beatles songs. I've always thought Aerosmith sucked and
their version of "COME TOGETHER" was dreadful.

John Lennon once said that Jeff Lynne and ELO were like
"The Sons of Beatles". That's high praise and accurate.
Coldplay and many countless other bands have a sound that
is Beatlesque...

The more I hear and see of Thiago, Rony, Reinaldo, and Rodrigo,
with Helton in the background, the more I really love The ZoomBeatles.