Rick Beato Gets Blocked For A Reason

This is my attempt to answer Rick Beato's questions relating to Warner (and other record labels) reasoning for blocking his "What makes this song great" videos.

Social Media

Subscribe to support the channel :)

[RickBeato]

Despite the clickbait title (which I have done many of :) and sinister thumbnail, there are multiple reasons that videos get blocked but only one reason that they get put back up: I draw attention to the blocks. Out out my 101 What Makes This Song Great episodes only one has been permanently blocked. If the artists or labels wanted the videos to stay down they wouldn’t be reinstated. It is fair use. Artists like Tool not only did not demonetize the two breakdowns I did but actively shared them on their social media. In fact, many of the artists have supplied the tracks to begin with. Peter Frampton was even in my last video on Do You Feel Like We Do. By the way, who’s making the money from this video? Not me :)

[DeanHorak]

I’ve had videos tagged for copyright infringement, which were my own performances of classical compositions of Chopin, Beethoven and Joplin - all dead for 100 years or more and and in the public domain. After review, the copyright infringement was removed, but it seems to me that automatically tagging a video for copyright infringement redirects the ad revenue to these publishers, and they receive a lot of ad funds from folks that don’t notice or care that their videos have gotten tagged.
The solution is to put a cost on making a copyright claim so that these publishers have a reason to go through the effort to verify the infringement before claiming it.

[dwc]

One thing I learned from Rick Beato's discussion of his Senate testimony:
Don Henley tosses and turns every night, troubled by the thought that somewhere, somebody is listening to The Eagles, and he isn't getting paid for it.

[Renwa]

I would argue that people watch Rick Beato's videos because of the energetic and charismatic way in which he breaks down the songs. He makes them so damned interesting where as a lot of these details that he points out might be lost on your average listener of that song otherwise. I know that it's because of Rick that I watch the videos. It's not the songs.

[mtae]

No one would know who Rick is if he just played songs on his channel and never said a word. People only watch for what he himself adds to it. The breakdowns, his playing, etc. I'd honestly never go listen to a tool song, because I don't really care. But I'll watch the what makes this song great and actually get an appreciation for tool. He adds ALL the value.

[rwj]

Your argument is solid, so no flames from me. I am 61 years old and have watched the music industry change drastically since Napster came into being. I see your point but I think Rick's argument of exposing old music to a younger crowd is the more compelling argument.

[docwill]

Truly Insane. Guys like Rick bring old hits back to popular consciousness introducing them to new generations.

He should be getting thanks & royalties, .

[gramursowanfaborden]

it's worth pointing out, Rick has consistently said he wants the labels (and youtube) to have the money made from the advertising, he just wants them to stop taking the videos down. to be fair use, it only needs to be transformative. nobody goes to Rick's videos to listen to the whole, uninterrupted song, and Rick never does that. the value he adds is in what new material he brings, and he does not subtract from the value of the original work. the reason the labels keep taking the videos down is a perfect storm of Youtube's shoddy system and the labels' own flawed and outdated understanding of how that system works.

[LeviClay]

You're pretty spot on here man, the only thing I disagree with is when you said that "it doesn't mean the money has left the industry, it's just moved somewhere else". If record sales are down, it doesn't make sync suddenly generate more money. The music consumer spends a fraction of what they did 20 years ago on music. And sure, while publishing is still lucrative (it's shocking how little people know about the live aspect. PRS make their members good money!!), that money on the masters side is getting absolutely hammered.

I also don't think the labels and publishers are blocking Rick for that reason. I genuinely think it's automated. But I could absolutely see why they might do it for the reasons you talk about here if they sat down and thought about it.

[rhllnm]

Prohibiting Rick's use of parts of songs is like prohibiting English professors from handing out printed examples of writing by famous authors. No one is not buying a novel because they can get two paragraphs for free from their English teacher. No one is not buying a CD because they can hear a section of a song on Rick's channel.

[LordStraightBanana]

I often go away and listen to the song again after watching Rick’s (quite masterful, to be fair) dissection of it.
Many times, it’s like hearing it with fresh ears, hearing parts is never noticed before. I expect I’m not alone either.

The point of this being, that’s extra revenue via streaming.

[DamianKeyes]

Seeing Rik in one your videos defo got me as I’m a huge fan. One thing I would disagree with is the phrase ‘The music industry is broken’ leading us to believe the music industry was once fixed. Artists and bands have been ripped off for decade on decade and I would suggest that while the industry is evolving to keep up with technology changes and consumption habits it is not broken just different to what it used to be.

While there are many negatives for artists there are also now many positives for new and existing artists to take control, build and monetise in a way that many before them couldn’t.

Just a thought.

[rwi]

Interesting perspective, thanks for posting

[stevejon]

Personally, I see Beato as a force for good. His insight into how music has been created comes from the heart and his genuine enthusiasm for the music.

Although often the artist never had the musical knowledge to think in that way and often went with what sounded good to their ear, Rick can explain the theory behind why the song/composition works. Combine this with his analysis behind the production skills and values, has to me meant that I've found a new respect for music that I've been indifferent to in the past.

The fact that he has many endorsee musicians for his videos (e.g. Steve Lukather, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, amongst many others) is an good indication that his motives are in the right place.

I see this video as an exercise in attempting to promote your channel, hanging on the coat tails of his output and the fact that so many of his videos are demonetised, as he explains requires other sources of revenue in order to sustain his work on his channel. so hence the product/merchandising plugs.

I've read some comments here about that he's an 'idiot', but I would say that these remarks are disingenuous and might come from a place of envy.

Many of these critics could only dream of possessing a scintilla of his knowledge, his skill and musical prowess on the guitar and piano. It's so easy to criticise and snipe at people who've put in tons of effort to make their content, and I would love to see the offerings that his critics can put out for us to witness as evidence of their credibility. My guess is that they won't be many takers.

[cjpreach]

BOTH men have a point here. Rick does a great job of re-energizing interest in great songs, and KDH is trying to answer the question of "WHY do publishers limit the use of their properties?" Admittedly, KDH does not hold the same opinion as the publishers. My POV? If I own a song, I want EVERY YouTuber in the world to highlight my work, and draw attention to it! Love Rick's videos, and KDH was fair in his analysis, IMO. G'Day, Mates!

[TooSkinnyKenny]

I don't know about other people but the. major reason I watch and listen to Beato's videos is because he is an actual musician I can communicate with and most professional musicians are very distant and unapproachable.

[WeaselFace]

This might be one of the best possible points I've seen someone make about this. So many people don't see how this could potentially be (and often already is) advertising. But if people thought of the extremes a bit more I think it would be a little clearer.

If I reviewed a queen song and just happened to be surrounded by Doritos advertising in every conceivable location on screen, while drinking mountain dew between hot takes...is that still a review or blatant advertising under the guise of review?

Advertisers pay big bucks for subtle advertising. Think a popular crime drama where everyone just happens to drive an Audi...

[eycpiq]

There are so many people here reacting negatively to your “argument” when you’re explicitly just advancing a theory about why the publishers are doing what they’re doing. Anyway I just wanted to say I understood that—it helped that you said so *many* times—and appreciated your perspective. Cheers!

[ADaviDTR]

I will say first that the fact that something is legal doesn't automatically make it moral. That being said, I think most artists receive scraps from their labels, so I doubt they very much care whether someone uses their song in their youtube video, especially in the way that Rick does. It's usually the labels that not only hound youtube videos, but end up fighting among themselves over perceived (and sometimes actual) plagiarism; often times artists aren't even involved at all in said disputes.
I have no issues with Rick doing what he does and getting money from it — my issues are against the patently unfair conditions labels subject most of their artists to, just like you rightly pointed out in your video about Big Hit.

[thirty]

It's an interesting theory, but is upended by Fair Use, which you mention early on. Due to Fair Use, if Rick wanted to start a television program to discuss the elements of popular music, he could buy the air time, sell as much ad time as he wants, sell his merch as much as he wants, basically do the exact same show, and the labels can't touch him. Broadcast time is valuable, for the most part, and a creator that generates revenue is worth protecting. (The FCC and the courts have gone over and over these issues.)

The reason these takedowns occur in the wild west of YouTube is because YouTube absolutely REFUSES to lift a finger to defend the creators.