|
|
Post by rick on Dec 7, 2020 16:30:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Dec 7, 2020 17:46:32 GMT -5
And I read that Stevie Nicks sold the majority of her publishing for $100,000,000.00.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 7, 2020 18:46:45 GMT -5
I normally wouldn't say anything bad about these folks, but the term "short-sighted" comes to mind...after the sight of Hamiltons and Benjamins (IMHO).
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 8, 2020 4:42:33 GMT -5
I normally wouldn't say anything bad about these folks, but the term "short-sighted" comes to mind...after the sight of Hamiltons and Benjamins (IMHO). Erik, maybe I am missing your point. Are you suggesting that they should have waited ? This probably wouldn't be a popular opinion, but I would say that IF Stevie Nicks were paid $100 million for her song catalog, then Bob Dylan's should be 50 times that, not just three times. My personal opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 8, 2020 9:23:21 GMT -5
Quote by rick:
It probably comes out of my not knowing all that much about music publishing rights, and of the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that both Stevie and Dylan are selling themselves short when it comes to their extremely valuable work (both monetarily and artistically speaking).
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Dec 8, 2020 9:33:29 GMT -5
I understand what Erik is saying. It is like selling part of you. Yes, there is an obvious monetary aspect of art but I guess more often, tmk, in the quote painting/sculpturing art genre/s it is often these high prices are commanded long after the artist has passed. Down to a more metaphorical phrase; it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I truly say that without any judgment/regard of the artist selling their catalog, just an almost karmic kind of feeling. Not sure I am expressing this right. I just get an overall feeling that something's a shame. Anyway. :-) eddiejinnj
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 8, 2020 14:21:20 GMT -5
And I read that Stevie Nicks sold the majority of her publishing for $100,000,000.00. With regard to Stevie Nicks, the figure I saw on the sale of her publishing rights was $80,000,000. Not $100,000,000 - but still not a small sum of money. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 8, 2020 14:57:24 GMT -5
Quote by rick: It probably comes out of my not knowing all that much about music publishing rights, and of the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that both Stevie and Dylan are selling themselves short when it comes to their extremely valuable work (both monetarily and artistically speaking). With regard to Bob Dylan, I see it as the fact Bob will be 80 next year and the selling of his catalog allows him a certain amount of security as well as allowing him to set aside a certain amount of the $300 million for his family and for investments. Part of the $300 million will need to be invested so whatever's invested can be written off in taxes, although the deal comes at the end of the year and maybe too late for investments and to be written off on any losses. With regard to Stevie, as I mentioned earlier, the figure I saw in her case was $80 million, not $100 million, and I'm sure age is playing a role in her decision to sell. I think security is a major concern. As for family, since she doesn't have any children herself, she may be looking to leave some of her money to her nieces and nephews as well as any possible investments. Most people are unaware that songwriting and music publishing are the lowest of music royalties. The basic royalty for an original song was ten cents, which is split between the songwriters and music publishers. Even if the songwriters publish their own works, they may have employees who help with the publishing. Or they use the services of a larger music publisher to act as an administrator of the publishing rights for a fee or part of the publishing, usually the latter. Songwriters (and music publishers) can make more money off the songs by writing songs that when recorded, exceed six minutes. The music royalties go up, not by much but more is more. If they use a melody that is in the public domain however, the royalty is only 1/20th that of an original work. As mentioned, I'm sure age is playing a major role in Bob and Stevie selling their music publishing rights. I'm sure they look at colleagues like Linda and Neil Diamond, both diagnosed with Parkinson's initially - though Linda's is now progressive supranuclear palsy. And that has to affect them as to what could happen to them if they become incapacitated and no longer able to perform. Worse, and even more frightening is the fact many of their peers have passed away from illnesses. I'm not sure if the selling of the music publishing rights includes the selling of the songwriting royalties. They may still receive royalties as songwriters but not as publishers of their own works. It's also possible the sale of the music publishing will not apply to new works and both Stevie and Bob (and others) will have new publishing companies to handle new works. I am sure however, both did a lot of soul searching before deciding to sell and again, I'm sure their age was a factor in deciding to sell. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 8, 2020 15:52:55 GMT -5
I think a lot of factors go into selling off the rights. Evidently Paul McCartney was upset at the way that Michael Jackson handled the rights to his catalog, which leads me to believe that McCartney shouldn't have sold it to Michael Jackson.
I remember when Berry Gordy sold Motown to Universal and many people have been upset with how Universal has handled the Motown legacy. There are people working there who do care about Motown and its artists, but, from what I hear over on the Motown Forum, these producers who try to package expanded editions are blocked at every turn by the executives at Universal.
Someone I knew was a huge Prince fan and he was very dismayed to learn that Prince's family was going to be in charge of the releases. Articles have been written about how the family doesn't know best how to release the unreleased tracks that Prince fans want.
Maybe Dylan felt that with his huge catalog that it needed to be handled by a huge conglomerate like a Universal. It's too bad that a smaller label couldn't have afford to bid with the big boys. Imagine that in the coming years we will hear Dylan's music on ads for diabetes medications and cat food.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 8, 2020 19:25:55 GMT -5
I think a lot of factors go into selling off the rights. Evidently Paul McCartney was upset at the way that Michael Jackson handled the rights to his catalog, which leads me to believe that McCartney shouldn't have sold it to Michael Jackson. Paul McCartney didn't sell his publishing rights on the songs written by John Lennon and/or Paul McCartney, with a few George Harrison titles thrown in. The Lennon-McCartney group of songs were owned Dick James Music. When Dick James Music put the publishing on the Beatles catalog up for sale in the 80s, Michael Jackson was able to grab the publishing because of the money he made from "Thriller." And he truly did pick up the rights for a song. He only paid $23.5 million for the publishing. And reportedly, Paul and Yoko couldn't come up with enough money between them to buy back the publishing. Which was funny as each were said to have personal wealth exceeding $200 million at the time. It was ironic as McCartney had been the one who encouraged Jackson to buy up the publishing rights of other songwriters and artists. McCartney was also accused of hypocrisy as he had acquired Buddy Holly's music publishing catalog, despite the fact Buddy's family wanted the publishing rights to his catalog. McCartney felt no great desire to let Buddy's family have the rights back to his catalog. Jackson, on the other hand, before his death had felt remorse about owning the publishing on the Lennon and/or McCartney catalog and wanted to return the rights to Paul and Yoko and John's sons. He may have had some idea he was going to die and he wanted to return the catalog by bequeathing the return in a will. However, he died before that could happen and his family sold off all his rights to Sony-ATV. They still have the rights today and they are one of the richest, if not the richest of all music publishers, having acquired the music catalogs on hundreds of other artists and music publishing companies. But, it's no less than what Sir Paul has been doing with his MPL Communications and Universal is doing today. If Sir Paul really wanted to buy back the Lennon-McCartney copyrights, he has the money to do so. He just shows no inclination to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 12, 2020 23:02:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jul 30, 2021 23:37:33 GMT -5
|
|
