|
|
Post by JOJO SIWA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME on Jan 13, 2021 2:56:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jan 13, 2021 11:25:15 GMT -5
I’ve been seeing this a lot too in recent weeks, particularly with Fleetwood Mac and Neil Young. It seems Shakira has also sold hers too:
|
|
shayonce
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 2,197 
|
Post by shayonce on Jan 13, 2021 11:49:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JOJO SIWA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME on Mar 3, 2021 14:06:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JOJO SIWA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME on Jun 17, 2021 18:58:16 GMT -5
David Guetta sells his songs for a nine-figure sum By Mark Savage David Guetta, the producer behind hits like Titanium, I Got A Feeling and Hey Mama, has sold his back catalogue to Warner Music for a nine-figure sum. The French star made about $100m (£72m) in the deal, which also covers his future recordings, people familiar with the negotiations told the BBC. It comes amid a spending spree on hit songs, with Bob Dylan and Paul Simon's catalogues also selling for millions. Guetta is one of the biggest figures in pop and dance in the 21st Century. The 52-year-old has sold 50 million records and racked up more than 14 billion streams, and has worked with Rihanna, Bruno Mars, Justin Bieber, The Black Eyed Peas, Nicki Minaj and Sia. He started off as a DJ in Paris and Ibiza, making his name with an unauthorised remix of David Bowie's Heroes. His first UK number one was 2009's When Love Takes Over, recorded with Destiny's Child singer Kelly Rowland. He is currently back in the top 10 with the Little Mix collaboration Heartbreak Anthem. A two-time Grammy winner, Guetta has helped shaped the sound of modern pop - notably introducing America to European dance music through his production work the Black Eyed Peas' I Got A Feeling. "It's rare for an artist to not only define a genre, but transform it," said Warner Music boss Max Lousada in a statement. "David has been doing that for over two decades. "He continues to have an extraordinary impact on the evolution of dance music, while innovating and collaborating with new voices in dynamic ways." The acquisition of hit songs has become a major business over the last three years, as streaming opens up new revenue sources for classic hits. The London-based Hipgnosis Songs Fund has led the way, taking a 50% share in Neil Young's back catalogue, as well as obtaining the rights to music by Shakira, the Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Fleetwood Mac guitarist Lindsey Buckingham. Universal Music Group also spent a reported $300m (£288m) to acquire Bob Dylan's song catalogue; while Sony Music Group has spent $1.4 bn (£1bn) on music-related acquisitions in the six months to the end of May this year - including splashing out a nine-figure sum for Paul Simon's hits. The purpose of these deals is to allow investors to earn royalties every time one of those is played. Investors usually seek out hits that have endured over decades, making Guetta's deal unusual, as his most popular songs were almost exclusively released in the last 10 years. The deal is unique in one other respect - in that Guetta has sold his master recordings, rather than his songwriting rights. It is still unusual for musicians to own their recordings, which are more typically in the control of record labels. However, Warner Music could be exposing itself to a certain amount of risk with its latest investment, according to industry website Music Business Worldwide. "Some industry observers believe music like Guetta's best-known hits will ultimately be stung by a 'decay' in popularity," wrote Tim Ingham. "Others point to the fact that a tune like Guetta's Titanium was released 10 years ago, and continues to maintain a handsome level of streaming popularity." Guetta is currently the world's eighth most-popular artist on Spotify. His manager, Jean-Charles Carré, said several companies had expressed an interest in buying the rights to his songs. In a statement, Guetta added: "I'm super excited about the new music I'm working on. And even more excited that I have started to play all this new music live to my fans again and they are loving it. "This deal is about having the best people around me to ensure I can keep innovating with exciting new projects, while also working my extensive catalogue and continuing to build my career." www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57518573 |
|
†ealsünset
Platinum Member
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by †ealsünset on Jun 18, 2021 3:16:31 GMT -5
So the rumors of Taylor's masters switching hands again were untrue. David Guetta, the producer behind hits like Titanium, I Got A Feeling and Hey Mama, has sold his back catalogue to Warner Music for a nine-figure sum. Really, Mark Savage, really? |
|
|
|
Post by JOJO SIWA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME on Dec 25, 2022 2:43:28 GMT -5
A DEAL FOR JUSTIN'S RIGHTS? BELIEB IT Word has it that a deal for Justin Bieber’s publishing interest and recording revenue is about to close, according to sources close to the artist. We speculated earlier this year that this would be a massive deal, possibly north of $200m. There’s no confirmation yet as to who’s cutting the big check to Bieber and team, but we’re told the pact is due to close imminently. Bieber has amassed 13m in U.S. activity to date, earning more than 17 billion streams and selling 50m tracks (note that he's much bigger globally). Meanwhile, there’s buzz that Katy Perry is shopping for a deal of a similar shape, though on a smaller scale—it’s expected her publishing/recording share is valued in the $80m-100m range. Lawyers are believed to be burning the midnight oil to get these deals done before year’s end. hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=334162&title=A-DEAL-FOR-JUSTINS-RIGHTS%253F-BELIEB-IT |
|
SHOOTER
Diamond Member
3x Poster Of The Year!!!
Typical of those in power to stay worried about the *wrong* shit.
Joined: April 2006
Posts: 75,055
|
Post by SHOOTER on Dec 26, 2022 2:17:08 GMT -5
Kinda surprised Katy's valuation is so low.
|
|
Ty
Diamond Member
good vibes and R&B
Joined: March 2009
Posts: 12,791
|
Post by Ty on Dec 26, 2022 17:02:19 GMT -5
Probably it has to do with the industry's valuation of the success of her future projects? Since this type of deals include future recordings.
She has had arguably one of the biggest era in the history of pop music, but it's unlikely that she's going to have another era like that, unlike Bieber, who's been a lot more consistent and much younger, not to mention male artists tend to enjoy a longer shelf life.
|
|
Kelly's 10th Fan
Moderator
like a grandma with a peppermint
Joined: November 2021
Posts: 515
Staff
|
Post by Kelly's 10th Fan on Dec 29, 2022 21:50:25 GMT -5
Probably it has to do with the industry's valuation of the success of her future projects? Since this type of deals include future recordings. She has had arguably one of the biggest era in the history of pop music, but it's unlikely that she's going to have another era like that, unlike Bieber, who's been a lot more consistent and much younger, not to mention male artists tend to enjoy a longer shelf life. I've been searching how catalogs are valued lately bc I found the wide discrepancy between Katy and Justin odd - Bieber has more material, but more than double the value of Katy's? That seemed strange to me. There are a few methods that can be used to valuate a music catalog; the one that likely most pertains to these two is the income approach with a discount cash flow model. That method looks at the royalties music has earned in the past five to seven years, and then factors in an estimated regression of earnings over time (as music is assumed to lose popularity about two years after its release but eventually flatten out at some point). I believe this is what has Katy's number lower than what her albums are probably truly worth. Her last five to seven years are basically the aftermath of Witness, when her entire brand took a big hit. If she waited a few years and snagged some licensing deals in the meantime, likely the price would go up again, bc her music would appear to be increasing in popularity and earnings (and thus resetting the point of regression). Anything under 125M is a bargain, IMO. I see Katy's music lending itself very well to licensing/sync in the long run. Justin OTOH is benefiting largely from having very recent releases in his catalog which are likely carrying the load far more than his older stuff is. TBH I think he's being overvalued a bit, but I'm not gonna knock the hustle. The industry is dying and anyone who can cash out is running for the exits while they can. Future projects are only considered if those are part of the deal, but I haven't seen any indication that Katy or Biebs' prospective deals will, so this post is made on the assumption that they don't (Bieber clearing 200M makes a lot more sense if his does, though). I don't think that's quite the norm yet in these big sell-offs. 21st century music, and 2000s music in particular, is going to be the trickiest to value correctly IMO because it's not old enough to know yet what's going to hold up as an evergreen, but also most of it is not 'new' enough to grab the streaming audience and amass the large numbers that would otherwise properly reflect any continued popularity. |
|
|
|
Post by Private Dancer on Dec 30, 2022 12:59:00 GMT -5
Probably it has to do with the industry's valuation of the success of her future projects? Since this type of deals include future recordings. She has had arguably one of the biggest era in the history of pop music, but it's unlikely that she's going to have another era like that, unlike Bieber, who's been a lot more consistent and much younger, not to mention male artists tend to enjoy a longer shelf life. I've been searching how catalogs are valued lately bc I found the wide discrepancy between Katy and Justin odd - Bieber has more material, but more than double the value of Katy's? That seemed strange to me. There are a few methods that can be used to valuate a music catalog; the one that likely most pertains to these two is the income approach with a discount cash flow model. That method looks at the royalties music has earned in the past five to seven years, and then factors in an estimated regression of earnings over time (as music is assumed to lose popularity about two years after its release but eventually flatten out at some point). I believe this is what has Katy's number lower than what her albums are probably truly worth. Her last five to seven years are basically the aftermath of Witness, when her entire brand took a big hit. If she waited a few years and snagged some licensing deals in the meantime, likely the price would go up again, bc her music would appear to be increasing in popularity and earnings (and thus resetting the point of regression). Anything under 125M is a bargain, IMO. I see Katy's music lending itself very well to licensing/sync in the long run. Justin OTOH is benefiting largely from having very recent releases in his catalog which are likely carrying the load far more than his older stuff is. TBH I think he's being overvalued a bit, but I'm not gonna knock the hustle. The industry is dying and anyone who can cash out is running for the exits while they can. Future projects are only considered if those are part of the deal, but I haven't seen any indication that Katy or Biebs' prospective deals will, so this post is made on the assumption that they don't (Bieber clearing 200M makes a lot more sense if his does, though). I don't think that's quite the norm yet in these big sell-offs. 21st century music, and 2000s music in particular, is going to be the trickiest to value correctly IMO because it's not old enough to know yet what's going to hold up as an evergreen, but also most of it is not 'new' enough to grab the streaming audience and amass the large numbers that would otherwise properly reflect any continued popularity. Any idea as to why acts are selling their music? I have an assumption but I'm not sure. I just wonder why Tina Turner and other acts are sellin their music. |
|
Kelly's 10th Fan
Moderator
like a grandma with a peppermint
Joined: November 2021
Posts: 515
Staff
|
Post by Kelly's 10th Fan on Jan 7, 2023 5:49:16 GMT -5
I've been searching how catalogs are valued lately bc I found the wide discrepancy between Katy and Justin odd - Bieber has more material, but more than double the value of Katy's? That seemed strange to me. There are a few methods that can be used to valuate a music catalog; the one that likely most pertains to these two is the income approach with a discount cash flow model. That method looks at the royalties music has earned in the past five to seven years, and then factors in an estimated regression of earnings over time (as music is assumed to lose popularity about two years after its release but eventually flatten out at some point). I believe this is what has Katy's number lower than what her albums are probably truly worth. Her last five to seven years are basically the aftermath of Witness, when her entire brand took a big hit. If she waited a few years and snagged some licensing deals in the meantime, likely the price would go up again, bc her music would appear to be increasing in popularity and earnings (and thus resetting the point of regression). Anything under 125M is a bargain, IMO. I see Katy's music lending itself very well to licensing/sync in the long run. Justin OTOH is benefiting largely from having very recent releases in his catalog which are likely carrying the load far more than his older stuff is. TBH I think he's being overvalued a bit, but I'm not gonna knock the hustle. The industry is dying and anyone who can cash out is running for the exits while they can. Future projects are only considered if those are part of the deal, but I haven't seen any indication that Katy or Biebs' prospective deals will, so this post is made on the assumption that they don't (Bieber clearing 200M makes a lot more sense if his does, though). I don't think that's quite the norm yet in these big sell-offs. 21st century music, and 2000s music in particular, is going to be the trickiest to value correctly IMO because it's not old enough to know yet what's going to hold up as an evergreen, but also most of it is not 'new' enough to grab the streaming audience and amass the large numbers that would otherwise properly reflect any continued popularity. Any idea as to why acts are selling their music? I have an assumption but I'm not sure. I just wonder why Tina Turner and other acts are sellin their music. Sorry for this late response! Short answer, the industry is dying very quickly. The tweet in the OP gives a pretty quick rundown of how music labels have basically killed profits in their own industry; anyone who can cash out big is doing so before the ATM runs out of money. Longer answer: There are generally only three ways a performer earns money strictly from their status as a musician - - mechanical royalties (percentage of sales and streams). If you are fortunate enough to own part or all of your masters, your total mechanical royalty share is larger than if you are just' the recording artist - touring/paid performances (festivals, private events, etc.) - merch (basically anything you'd be able to buy either at a tour venue or from the artist's website) A songwriter (or publishing co.) meanwhile earns money from - mechanical royalties (an interesting quirk here is that the songwriter mechanical royalty rate is much lower for streams than for sales) - performance royalties (radio spins, plays in restaurants or stores) - print music royalties (sheet music and lyric websites). Very little money is made here - sync/licensing royalties (fees for using your music in a movie, tv show, commercial, video game, Youtube video, etc.) Anything after this involves non-music ventures. Name/image/likeness (NIL) rights cash in on your celebrity status and that often branches off into endorsements for otherwise unrelated products, so I'm not going to count that as music-related income. The music industry keeps finding annoying ways of nuking every source of revenue an artist or songwriter can get (if an artist ever had access to that revenue source in the first place). Most major label artists will never own their masters and the few who do usually only acquire them decades after release; and when music sales started dwindling, labels started pushing 360 deals on new artists to cut into their tour and merch money. Label execs will never admit it but they are largely the cause of lower sales because they kept trying to shovel out microwave-popcorn music for mass 'appeal' instead of embracing creativity, and they have an all-or-nothing mentality that has led them to chase for big blockbusters instead of being content with several respectable mid-level successes that could keep everyone's lights on. For a long time conventional wisdom was that for an artist, the money was in songwriting and touring. Now that streaming has decimated sales, the tables have turned on songwriters and they make a lot less...but recording artists aren't making more, so this isn't a net boon for singer-songwriters. Furthermore, the pandemic really screwed over acts who relied heavily on touring. For two years straight there were no shows at all, but now that we're no longer in lockdown more artists than normal are trying to get back on the road at the same time (so someone who might be accustomed to booking, say, a 30-city tour may find that only 12 or 13 cities are available for the time frame in which they'd like to tour). Inflation has driven up the cost of everything which makes touring less profitable, while at the same time making tickets less affordable and thus a harder sell. Festivals have been slow to get back into the groove, and some have fallen through. Santigold did an interview with Rolling Stone back in October talking about the burnout that many artists are suffering right now. She touches on the touring and festival issue along with other factors. Basically everything is a perfect storm of shitty events which are turning music careers as a whole into an unprofitable endeavor for almost everyone, but acts who have an extensive back catalog of self-penned music have this final golden parachute in their publishing and they're taking it before everything goes to hell in a hand basket. |
|
Heavy on the unless.
