Your dollars are in many cases going to the corporate owners of the copyrights for the music. Look at what Universal did Monday - bought Dylan's 600 song catalog! There's gold in dem dar hills!
Who am I supporting?
I'm a guy who uses a streaming service to find new music. Periodically, I'll make a list of the things I want to go ahead and buy in some form, and buy them.
I buy basically as a way of "voting" for the music I like, and to support musicians. Something I've always wondered about, though, is who am I supporting when I buy the music of deceased artists? Not the artists, obviously. I assume in many cases their families get some royalties. But where does the money generally go? Is the label just gobbling up those dollars?
I listen to a lot of jazz and blues, and the bulk of the artists are no longer with us.
I buy basically as a way of "voting" for the music I like, and to support musicians. Something I've always wondered about, though, is who am I supporting when I buy the music of deceased artists? Not the artists, obviously. I assume in many cases their families get some royalties. But where does the money generally go? Is the label just gobbling up those dollars?
I listen to a lot of jazz and blues, and the bulk of the artists are no longer with us.
12 responses Add your response
The business of music is a business, just like any other. Where the money goes in the case of a deceased performing artist or songwriter depends in part upon the deals they struck and whether they’ve been renegotiated, contracts terminated, popularity of the content at the time of release, and a host of other factors, including the popularity of the particular songs or recorded performances today. When the industry got whacked by file sharing, the consumer benefitted at the expense of both the industry and the artist community due to the "free" exchange of music over the Net. Now that streaming in its various forms has become established, it’s no longer the record label as gatekeeper but big Data. Yes, Universal (who bought Dylan’s catalog) is big, but the money paid for those copyrights seemed to reflect an assessment that there were some enduring songs, many covered by others, but in some respects the numbers were low compared to the days of yore. Dylan is a prestige name to have in the roster of a back catalog. Universal’s holdings are vast. It would be great fun to plunder that catalog for reissues. There are too many stories of musicians who never saw a dime. Who signed with bad business people, had their records released haphazardly and got lost in the vast trove of popular music that was being exploited from the youth explosion in the ’60s ’til now. Some of that music simply got lost- whether it was private label or small independent releases that were never legitimately reissued. And that assumes a demand for the music. Some of it is simply forgotten or neglected, occasionally to be brought back by some savvy music director--e.g., Badfinger’s Baby Blue during the finale of Breaking Bad.. There are a lot of stories in the naked city and few of them are happy ones. |
...There are too many stories of musicians who never saw a dime. Who signed with bad business people, had their records released haphazardly...So many artists ripped off by managers and record companies. Probably no one robbed worse than the great old blues artists, but they’re not the only ones. Smart artists like Dylan who kept their rights reap a fortune. His catalog just sold (by him) for over $300M, it’s being reported. ---- " It was during their collaboration on 1983’s “Say Say Say” that former Beatle Paul McCartney is said to have advised King of Pop Michael Jackson to invest some of his enormous wealth in music publishing. It was sound financial advice that McCartney may have come to regret giving on August 14, 1985, when Michael Jackson purchased the publishing rights to the vast majority of the Beatles’ catalog for $47 million, outbidding McCartney himself." It cost $750M for Sony to buy 50% rights to the Beatles catalog from MJ’s estate. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/michael-jackson-takes-control-of-the-beatles-publishing-... ----- "McCartney had yet another success to celebrate — after a long battle dating back decades, the prolific songwriter finally regained the copyright to the Beatles catalog in a private settlement with Sony ATV. In 1969, McCartney and Lennon attempted to buy Northern Songs, which was the original publisher of the Beatles catalog, though the duo lost out to ATV Music. Some decade-and-a-half later, ATV Music went up for sale, offering McCartney yet another chance to re-secure the rights to the Beatles’ Lennon-McCartney songs. In an unfortunate twist, McCartney was outbid by friend and fellow musical legend Michael Jackson, who bought the company for $47.5 million in 1985 — Jackson bought ATV Music following McCartney’s advice noting the value of music publishing, and their friendship never recovered from what McCartney considered a betrayal. In early 2016, Sony announced that it would buy out Jackson’s 50% stake of ATV Music from the late musician’s estate for $750 million, creating yet another chance for McCartney to negotiate the rights to his songwriting work with The Beatles...
Thus, the news over the weekend that Paul McCartney secured the rights
to his music in a private settlement was a big win for the former
Beatle, who has been on this journey to secure the rights to his own
music for nearly fifty years. While few details about the settlement
have been disclosed, McCartney’s lawyer, Michael Jacobs, announced, that
Sony and McCartney “have resolved this matter by entering into a
confidential settlement agreement” at the end of last week and that
McCartney’s lawsuit over the catalog had been dismissed. Congratulations
to Sir Paul McCartney for this big win over the weekend!" |
A Brief History of the Ownership of the Beatles Catalog
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7662519/beatles-catalog-paul-mccartney-brief-history... |
Do not concern yourself one iota in regard to where the money goes, because in 9 out of 10 times the artists family will not get one red cent. Jazz musicians have been notoriously bad business men, and the most prominent record companies were always quick to take advantage of that. When you add in the fact that some of the best jazz musicians were addicts, and no one can be taken advantage of easier than an addict needing a fix; you get the picture. |