|
Post by the Scribe on Sept 26, 2013 15:39:47 GMT -5
I meant she didn't particularly like the sound of own voice or listening to it as much as she liked singing with it. Had she had a bigger ego we would have volumes more material. I am not sure how much she had to do to take care of her voice as I think it had always been dependable until the last decade. Her genre switching and voice lessons no doubt helped exercise and strengthen it.
|
|
beatle
A Number and a Name
Still Alive
Posts: 51
|
Post by beatle on Sept 26, 2013 18:01:08 GMT -5
I think McCartney could be a billion. Music publishing (ie who owns the songs) is where all the money is made in the music biz. His company MPL has a huge catalog which not only includes Buddy Holly but also musicals such as Annie and a Chorus Line. You can go to their site and see the list. Quite a few years ago it was said somewhere that he makes about a million a week from mechanical royalties alone. He is simply in a different league than most of this peers... But yes a lot of the estimates of these rock stars seem high. And "worth" is different than cash on hand. Many times these stars declare bankruptcy because they were borrowing against their names. If Rock Star X shows up at a bank somewhere....who wouldn't give him money? He's "rich" right? Rich Music publishing is where the "residual" money is, where the money keeps coming in every time a recording is sold or played on tv, radio, satellite radio or internet or sheet music is sold, but it's still the cheapest of the royalties associated with the recording business. And even as a music publisher, Macca doesn't get to keep all of the publishing money on the songs he himself didn't write, he still has to split the publishing money money with the songwriters or their estates. In the old days of music publishing, the split used to be 50/50, the publisher taking half and the songwriters taking half. As songwriters became more knowledgeable about music publishing, music publishers started making less and less on the publishing side of the business. Some publisher these days just make a quarter interest on the publishing with maybe a 5-15% administrative fee for "running" the publishing company. Of course, Macca owns the publishing on a lot of songs that were divested in other publishing companies. And he acquired those songs by acquiring those companies, which is the way Sony/ATV acquired what was supposed to be a 50% interest in the Beatles copyrights from Michael Jackson. But, again, money can only be made if the songs are being played or sold. Many of them are but I think there's just as many of them that are idled, don't get played and they're not on big selling albums, so they're not making money for Macca. Most of Buddy Holly's catalog is that way. You hear his hits occasionally on the radio or buy them on compilation albums, but the rest of his catalog? It's ironic that Macca is so rich from the publishing on everyone else's songs, yet he wasn't able (along with Yoko) to come up with the money in 1976 to reacquire the Northern Songs/Maclen Music catalog, which of course was mostly the songs he and John Lennon wrote together or separately, although there were a few George Harrison songs published by Northern Songs as well. As for Macca making a million a week from the mechanical royalties, maybe so, but those claims reek of being the "Howard Hughes is a billionaire" variy ety. Current royalties being what they are (9.1 cents per recording sold) and assuming the split between publisher and songwriter is 50/50, that would mean the songs collectively would have to be selling about 250 million every week. Again, collectively, but that again still seems like too large of a number and an exaggeration of income. You have some of the story and rules off... ....in the case of the songs he owns he makes all of the money for the rights to use it.... He owns all of, let's say, Buddy Holly's songs.....he doesn't split that with anyone....in the original Beatles deal he and John originally "owned" a portion of the publishing with the rest of it going to Brian Epstein and Dick James. And this was the standard deal at the time. Eventually they we in a sense overruled (it is a longer story but....) in the sale of the catalog to ATV who had it for years.....when it went up for auction he and Yoko (Oh NO!) lost a bidding war with Jackson which was done on a blind bidding basis...I believe that they bid 26 or so million and he bid like 35 million.....and that was as they say show biz... Jackson would eventually use it as collateral for a deal with Sony.....but don't worry about Paul as he is the biggest independent publisher in the world
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 26, 2013 21:44:37 GMT -5
You have some of the story and rules off... ....in the case of the songs he owns he makes all of the money for the rights to use it.... He owns all of, let's say, Buddy Holly's songs.....he doesn't split that with anyone....in the original Beatles deal he and John originally "owned" a portion of the publishing with the rest of it going to Brian Epstein and Dick James. And this was the standard deal at the time. Eventually they we in a sense overruled (it is a longer story but....) in the sale of the catalog to ATV who had it for years.....when it went up for auction he and Yoko (Oh NO!) lost a bidding war with Jackson which was done on a blind bidding basis...I believe that they bid 26 or so million and he bid like 35 million.....and that was as they say show biz... Jackson would eventually use it as collateral for a deal with Sony.....but don't worry about Paul as he is the biggest independent publisher in the world Um, no...Paul gets the publisher's split of the money. He doesn't get to keep the money that goes to the songwriters or their estates, anymore than Michael Jackson (and now Sony/ATV) got to keep the songwriter's portion of the money, because the money does come out of the same publishing royalties. Paul has to pay the songwriters or their estates any time their songs are played or sold. Failure to pay the songwriters could result in Paul being sued in court over unpaid royalties and losing the rights to the songs. Failure to pay could also result in his licensing arrangements in the US with BMI, ASCAP and SESAC being revoked. But, that's not a problem because Paul does pay the songwriters their shares of the royalties. The arrangement the Beatles, Brian Epstein had with Dick James and Dick James Music on the publishing covered only the publishing side but not the songwriting side. That arrangement also included Harrison and Starr (according to Time magazine, 1971) because both of them had a small percentage in Northern Songs/Maclen. All that meant was the Beatles got some of the publishing money on songs they wrote in addition to all of the songwriting royalties. Even though they sold out their publishing interests because of the bitterness from their break up, the selling of Northern Songs/Maclen didn't mean they forfeited the songwriting royalties. They still got those and are still getting them, although in John's case, his songwriting royalties go to his immediate family members. It was the publishing side Paul and Yoko tried to win back the rights on and were outbidded by Michael Jackson. The way I recalled the story on the selling of Northern Songs/Maclen was that Paul and Yoko tried to match the offer put up by Michael Jackson, but were unable to come up with the money. The figure I heard at the time was that Michael Jackson paid for the Northern Songs catalog was the $26 million, although I've seen some other accounts that suggested he paid somewhere between $35 million and $50 million. Whichever way it happened, I thought it was too bad Paul and Yoko didn't get the rights back to the publishing. The idea of Michael Jackson owning the rights to the Beatles's publishing never set well with me. But, he had the money at the time and was willing to pay to have it, even though he ticked off McCartney in the process. But, Macca was the one who told Jackson to acquire the publishing rights on other people's songs, and I guess Macca never expected Jackson to go after the Beatles's publishing. But, it's also a pity Linda's management never set up publishing companies or acquired publishing companies on her behalf which still could've been providing her with an income even after her record sales had declined. During his lifetime, Elvis Presley held the copyrights on more than 2,000 songs. That total naturally included songs he recorded but like McCartney, he acquired other publishing companies and collected the publisher's part of the royalties. That was back in the day when the songwriting-publishing royalties were really cheap: two cents split 50/50 between the publisher and songwriters from the 50s through much of the 70s, when the rate was increased to two and three quarters cents. Even so, on the copyrights he did own, Elvis managed to make a million dollars or more per year. Of course, maybe Linda invested her money in other ventures - a performer didn't necessarily have to invest in the same business they were in.
|
|
beatle
A Number and a Name
Still Alive
Posts: 51
|
Post by beatle on Sept 27, 2013 5:46:01 GMT -5
I won't continue the argument but you are free to read a great book called "Rock and Roll is Here to Pay" which explains how it all works....Paul doesn't pay any money to any composers....he bought the songs and he owns them. And he doesn't make any songwriting royalties off of the Beatles songs either other than from the recordings themselves. He has even been asked many times how he feels about paying someone else for the right to use his own music...so if he was getting paid then he wouldn't be as bothered. Brian Wilson had the same issue when his father sold his songs in the late 60s.....
|
|
|
Post by Richard W on Sept 27, 2013 8:20:11 GMT -5
I can only compare Linda's criticism of her voice to my own experience as a writer.
Several years ago I had a short story published in a national magazine. I hadn't read that story in the years since until a short time ago when I happened across my copy of the magazine that contained it. All I could think of when rereading it was the parts of it that I wish I could change. At the time it was the best I could do; if I could have done it better I would have but, of course, that's impossible thinking.
|
|
richbaileyswifesue
A Number and a Name
I am Rich Bailey's wife and a singer too (or was)
Posts: 25
|
Post by richbaileyswifesue on Sept 27, 2013 9:39:51 GMT -5
"Beatle" asked me to post this reply for him since his workplace blocks the forum: I thought a little more about it on my drive to work and I think we are talking about 2 different things sort of... You are partially right.......In a normal publishing deal the writer does make his royalty.....I write a song...you publish it...artist X records it and the money flows.......but it could happen that you and I could sell the whole thing to let's say Paul....He offers you and I let's say a million dollars....You and I accept the deal and I no longer own the song nor have any claim on royalties from now on....that is in fact how it has happened to many writers....they had a few hits in the, let's say, the 60s and nowadays there isn't much coming in from them...another party offers to buy the songs for a large sum and that's that. That is what happened with Paul and Buddy Holly's music.....he offered the publisher and his widow a large sum and they sold the songs to him....done. He of course went on to work on his investment by the movie deal on the Buddy Holly Story etc etc. and of course had his old friend Peter Asher have some chick singer record some Buddy Holly stuff... ....His work with John was similar but not as nice....they co-owned the publishing with two other parties and it eventually was sold from underneath them....so they legally have no "songwriters" claim on the songs....that right is now owned by Sony Music....we all know that John and Paul wrote the songs but they have no monies coming from them.....same with Brian Wilson....they were low on cash and Murray sold the rights to his songs for cash....done......and that is how Paul is doing most of these deals these days Beatles recordings still sell but Paul only gets the recording royalty...minus the songwriting royalty...
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 27, 2013 12:32:30 GMT -5
"Beatle" asked me to post this reply for him since his workplace blocks the forum: I thought a little more about it on my drive to work and I think we are talking about 2 different things sort of... You are partially right.......In a normal publishing deal the writer does make his royalty.....I write a song...you publish it...artist X records it and the money flows.......but it could happen that you and I could sell the whole thing to let's say Paul....He offers you and I let's say a million dollars....You and I accept the deal and I no longer own the song nor have any claim on royalties from now on....that is in fact how it has happened to many writers....they had a few hits in the, let's say, the 60s and nowadays there isn't much coming in from them...another party offers to buy the songs for a large sum and that's that. That is what happened with Paul and Buddy Holly's music.....he offered the publisher and his widow a large sum and they sold the songs to him....done. He of course went on to work on his investment by the movie deal on the Buddy Holly Story etc etc. and of course had his old friend Peter Asher have some chick singer record some Buddy Holly stuff... ....His work with John was similar but not as nice....they co-owned the publishing with two other parties and it eventually was sold from underneath them....so they legally have no "songwriters" claim on the songs....that right is now owned by Sony Music....we all know that John and Paul wrote the songs but they have no monies coming from them.....same with Brian Wilson....they were low on cash and Murray sold the rights to his songs for cash....done......and that is how Paul is doing most of these deals these days Beatles recordings still sell but Paul only gets the recording royalty...minus the songwriting royalty... While it's possible for an author to sell their future royalties for a "lump" sum to a publisher, it wouldn't have made sense for a performer like Paul, who was also a writer, to sell his future songwriting royalties from the Beatles catalog, not when he was still making quite a bit of money from them. But, it also doesn't make any sense for a publisher to buyout the songwriter on his or her royalties if their songs are not making any money. If the songs are not making money for the songwriter, they won't make money for the music publisher. Buying the rights to songs that aren't being heard, played or sold isn't a smart business decision. Paul acquired Buddy Holly's catalog at a time when some of his music was still being played on oldies radio, so he would've made some money but not much from radio airplay. Record wise, there wasn't much in the way of product out there on Holly personally. A handful of other artists covered Holly's tunes but had so-so sales (excluding Linda) but as a music publisher, did Paul buy the songs just to have them or to make money from them? As mentioned, he bought the catalog but really wasn't promoting Holly's music. Linda was doing more with Buddy's music than what McCartney ever did, although he benefitted from Linda's covering the songs. But, the question I guess would be, did he pay royalties to the Holly estate? Again, the information I remember seeing is he acquired the copyrights on the publishing from the various publishing companies that owned the rights to Holly's music. And unless his family sold away their rights to any future royalties, they would still be collecting on the songwriting royalties. Paul would still have to be paying royalties to the Holly estate. Likewise, when the Beatles dissolved the business bonds, on the publishing, when they sold Northern Songs/Maclen to ATV Music in 1973, unless they signed away their songwriting royalties as part of the deal, they would still be collecting their songwriting royalties regardless. And the same holds true for when Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights in the 80s: unless Lennon, McCartney, Harrison (who had about ten songs published by Northern/Maclen) and Starr (cowriter on two songs) signed away their rights to the songwriting royalties (which could've happened though I don't believe that it did), they (and in the case of John and George, their estates) are still being paid songwriting royalties. The book that beatle recommends, "Rock and Roll Is Here to Pay" sounds interesting although just because someone writes something in a book doesn't make what's written in the book true. I'd have some questions for the writer, the main question being was he in the music business and in a position to know for certain the facts of the case? Every book I've ever read on the music industry has had errors because they are not written by people who were insiders. I don't know if the person who wrote the book in question was an insider, but unless he knows for a fact the Beatles (or Holly's estate) signed away their songwriting royalties and provides the documentation to back up the claim, that's the only way I'd believe a claim like that. Not saying it didn't happen, just have a few doubts.
|
|
beatle
A Number and a Name
Still Alive
Posts: 51
|
Post by beatle on Sept 27, 2013 18:22:57 GMT -5
I think Paul bought them cause he liked them and as an investment.....and it was totally sold. It is actually quite common. The song may be dead right now and mot offering the owner much in royalties in the short run....so why not sell it for a larger amount. And the buyer likely has the means to make it into something...and maybe not. And sometimes it is like buying an annuity. I have a song let's say that I believe will make me a million in the next ten years.....I might take that million now and let you have it for the "annuity". The Beatles deal was the same but not happily of course. It was a long battle for them and they lost because they weren't the controlling parties. And in sort of reverse question....why would I buy a song if I still had to pay someone else to use it? For Paul and many others from that time it was a tough lesson....so he went on to buy up a lot of other songs. There were 3 odd Beatles songs ..I think Please Please Me, PS I Love You, and Love Me Do that were not part of the main lot and owned by another publisher whose name escapes me... The book is very good and pretty clearly explains how all of the money in the music biz works. I believe it was written by am attorney. When I was talking with Linda's manager Ira in the good old days he taught me a lot about the business too and confirmed what I thought or sometimes corrected me...and please...I am not claiming to be an expert either...
|
|
beatle
A Number and a Name
Still Alive
Posts: 51
|
Post by beatle on Sept 27, 2013 18:36:18 GMT -5
I have been trying to find the book..there is another one with the same title but it isn't the one I remember....I will look for it over the weekend....Rich
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Sept 28, 2013 14:05:54 GMT -5
I think Paul bought them cause he liked them and as an investment.....and it was totally sold. It is actually quite common. The song may be dead right now and mot offering the owner much in royalties in the short run....so why not sell it for a larger amount. And the buyer likely has the means to make it into something...and maybe not. And sometimes it is like buying an annuity. I have a song let's say that I believe will make me a million in the next ten years.....I might take that million now and let you have it for the "annuity".On some of those songs, Paul is going to eventually run into something called the public domain, and ironically, he's more likely to run into it sooner in England than in the United States. In the US, the copyright is for the lifetime of the composer plus 75 years (sounds like a prison sentence), but in England, I believe every copyrighted item enters the public domain after 50 years, period. Elvis's recordings made between 1954 and 1963 are already in the public domain and every Tom, Dick and Harry record company can reissue the songs to their heart's delight and not have to pay royalties to BMG. By rights, any of the Beatles's earliest recordings produced from 1960 through 1963 should also be in the public domain and no longer subject to royalties. The thing with selling away your songwriting royalties for a lump sum is, if you're as successful as what Lennon and McCartney had been, and still selling in the millions by the year, why would you sell? The Lennon-McCartney Northern Songs/Maclen Music compromised about 200 songs that were released and have stayed in print. And even if the songwriting royalty was only a penny (half of the two cents, if they were selling 25 million albums per year collectively, that would've been an additional $125,000 apiece for John and Paul, in addition to their record royalties and the percentages they received as part owners of Northern Songs/Maclen Music. I would've said there was no incentive to sell away those rights unless of course the publisher made a deal too good to refuse. The Beatles deal was the same but not happily of course. It was a long battle for them and they lost because they weren't the controlling parties. And in sort of reverse question....why would I buy a song if I still had to pay someone else to use it? For Paul and many others from that time it was a tough lesson....so he went on to buy up a lot of other songs. There were 3 odd Beatles songs ..I think Please Please Me, PS I Love You, and Love Me Do that were not part of the main lot and owned by another publisher whose name escapes me...The Beatles were more in control than many artists. They lost millions in revenue from the side deals Brian Epstein made with other companies to promote Beatle related merchandise and a lousy record royalty deal with EMI. When the Rolling Stones got their record deal, the Beatles were green with envy because the royalty the Stones were getting initially was allegedly about three times better than what the Beatles were getting - which was supposed to be something like the Beatles were getting a quarter per album versus the Stones getting seventy-five cents per album. Allan Klein took over after Epstein, although he only represented Lennon, Harrison and Starr. McCartney objected strongly to Klein being their manager, wanting his father-in-law to take over as manager, not seeing or caring that the others saw that as a conflict of interest. Klein renegotiated and got the Beatles a better record royalty and Paul was present for the signing, but he didn't sign since Klein didn't represent him. But, the business dealings took their toll on the Beatles and it affected them as a musical group. Even so, they kept a tight rein on the business after they split. Their albums must always be sold at whatever the highest going retail price is for a current album and can't be discounted, even though the music id decades old now. Michael Jackson authorized the use of "Revolution" for that shoe commercial and that company thought his permission gave them the right to use the song. They found out otherwise. The book is very good and pretty clearly explains how all of the money in the music biz works. I believe it was written by am attorney. When I was talking with Linda's manager Ira in the good old days he taught me a lot about the business too and confirmed what I thought or sometimes corrected me...and please...I am not claiming to be an expert either...I see it's available on amazon, although it's a very expensive book for a "new" copy, yet I am one who always question an author's facts. He would have to be in a position to know exactly what happened, which would mean he'd have to be there from the start to finish or have access to the information. All too often, an author gives you their opinions and dresses them up as facts. They may be spot on or they miss the mark completely. I'm no expert either and it's conceivable Lennon and McCartney signed away their songwriting royalties. I just can't see that though.
|
|
|
Post by DRiZ on Mar 26, 2015 14:09:55 GMT -5
I think McCartney could be a billion. Music publishing (ie who owns the songs) is where all the money is made in the music biz. His company MPL has a huge catalog which not only includes Buddy Holly but also musicals such as Annie and a Chorus Line. You can go to their site and see the list. Quite a few years ago it was said somewhere that he makes about a million a week from mechanical royalties alone. He is simply in a different league than most of this peers... But yes a lot of the estimates of these rock stars seem high. And "worth" is different than cash on hand. Many times these stars declare bankruptcy because they were borrowing against their names. If Rock Star X shows up at a bank somewhere....who wouldn't give him money? He's "rich" right? Rich
|
|
|
Post by Driz on Mar 26, 2015 14:18:54 GMT -5
Also think of the time line when they made the bulk of there money ...also there life style in the height of there carrer .
Many years have past and we all have taken a hit with investments in the past 15 years ... It seems many of the music stars that go back to the 70 80,s are worth 115 million
I'm sure Linda is fine if she can afford a 5 million dollar house in Sanfran. However modest compared to her success .. But really what more does anyone need ...
I would be surprised if she is even worth 50 million ...
|
|
|
Post by me on Mar 26, 2015 21:03:27 GMT -5
I've managed to amass a net worth of over 2 million dollars by smart investment and only a few years have I earned more than 100K. If I had 12 to 20 million a year as Linda did at the height of her earnings, I would be rolling in it. Perhaps her investments are too conservative. I think she was heavily invested in real estate in the 1980s and early 1990s so that could have affected her bottom line. How many personal houses does she own? Tucson, San Francisco, Mexico?
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 3, 2018 2:51:44 GMT -5
Thought I would complete this interesting thread with the youtube video of the event. Also happy birthday to Rich.
Linda Ronstadt Complete Conversation with Patt Morrison Live Interview
Published on Jan 11, 2017
Promoting her memoir Simple Dreams, Linda Ronstadt had a live, in-person discussion about her personal and musical journey with Los Angeles Times journalist Patt Morrison at the Ann and Jerry Moss Theater, Santa Monica, CA.
In a casual interview format, the most successful female rock singer of the 1970s talks about helping kick-start the Eagles' musical career when Don Henley, Glenn Frey, Bernie Leadon and Randy Meisner were members of her touring band (6:12), making songwriters (like Warren Zevon) famous and choosing their songs (with help of Jackson Browne) (9:15), the influence of technology in music (12:20), live performances, music evolution, musical diversity (19:21), her relationship with California Governor Jerry Brown, politics and music education (23:03) among other interesting topics. Linda declares "I love YouTube."
A Q&A session with selected audience members concludes Linda Ronstadt event (42:09), sponsored by Writers Blog on September 24, 2013. Rita Wilson and Tom Hanks were in attendance. Watch more of Linda Ronstadt on Cal Vid Playlist including recent Los Angeles Tribute to the Music of Linda Ronstadt in December 2016.
Linda was forced to retire from singing due to her affliction from Parkinson's Disease. However, she is still active. Just last month, she narrated (but did not appear in) a terrific filmed tribute to honoree Eagles (attended by Don Henley, Joe Walsh and Timothy B. Schmit) for the 39th Annual Kennedy Center Honors in Washington D.C.
|
|