Source

Fleetwood Mac’s Christine McVie has sold her 115-title song catalog to Hipgnosis, the fast-growing music company that has spent more than $2 billion in three years acquiring rights to a vast number of popular songs.

McVie, who first joined Fleetwood Mac in 1970, is the writer of many of the long-running group’s biggest hits, including “Don’t Stop,” “You Make Loving Fun,” “Over My Head,” “Songbird,” “Say You Love Me” and others. Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1998, Fleetwood Mac are one of the most commercially successful music artists of the past 50 years, with the Grammy-winning 1977 album “Rumours” selling more than 45 million copies worldwide; second is 1987’s “Tango in the Night,” at 15 million.

McVie is the fourth of the band’s five members to make such a deal in the past nine months, and the second to go with Hipgnosis, after fellow Mac singer-songwriter Lindsey Buckingham completed the sale of 100% of his publishing rights to the company in January. Stevie Nicks, the group’s other major singer and songwriter, struck a far-reaching $100 million deal with Primary Wave late last year, and drummer-cofounder Mick Fleetwood made one with BMG comprising a variety of rights in January.

So many veteran artists doing this or similar now. Just watched a youtubers video who just bought George Bensons entire record collection (different I know). One last big payday in some cases I guess.

.

[Edited 8/9/21 0:58am]

The veterans are showing you the game. You still don't sign your catalog away when you are a new artist.

Cinny said:

The veterans are showing you the game. You still don't sign your catalog away when you are a new artist.

Since a lot of popular music after the mid-1980s contain samples & interpolations, I wonder how that would work for selling publishing. Especially for something like the Paul's Boutique album by Beastie Boys. I think that has hundreds of samples. Although Paul's Boutique came out before laws were created that samples had to be cleared. Would the owners of the original song/songs have to approve? Same for Weird Al parodies.

A song catalog is really only worth something if the songs and/or artists were popular in the first place.

I think it was David Crosby who said that he sold it because he wanted to leave something more for those he loved. He didn't need the publishing, it was a huge deal they signed, and he would be comfortable for the rest of his life (being an older man and all), and those that he left it to would do well, too.

These are people who aren't on the brink of death, but have certainly earned their pennies through the years. To sell their music catalog into the third act of their life, maybe not such a bad decision for them financially.

MickyDolenz said:

Cinny said:

The veterans are showing you the game. You still don't sign your catalog away when you are a new artist.

Since a lot of popular music after the mid-1980s contain samples & interpolations, I wonder how that would work for selling publishing. Especially for something like the Paul's Boutique album by Beastie Boys. I think that has hundreds of samples. Although Paul's Boutique came out before laws were created that samples had to be cleared. Would the owners of the original song/songs have to approve? Same for Weird Al parodies.

Beastie Boys actually had the first sampling lawsuit ever for something on Licensed To Ill, so the way publishing is divided really just depends on the history of a release. Christine McVie was certainly not the sole writer of every song in "her" publishing but it's her portion of it.

MickyDolenz said:

Cinny said:

The veterans are showing you the game. You still don't sign your catalog away when you are a new artist.

Since a lot of popular music after the mid-1980s contain samples & interpolations, I wonder how that would work for selling publishing. Especially for something like the Paul's Boutique album by Beastie Boys. I think that has hundreds of samples. Although Paul's Boutique came out before laws were created that samples had to be cleared. Would the owners of the original song/songs have to approve? Same for Weird Al parodies.

A song catalog is really only worth something if the songs and/or artists were popular in the first place.

I would think that's pretty simple.

If they sampled A song from B artist, then whatever deal was made for B artist to be paid, would then go to Hipgnosis.

I would also imagine that B artist is getting paid one of two ways:

1) they have a point on the album, so they get $X per album or single (with their sample) sold; or

2) they were paid a flat fee for using the song in a particular song and only that version is allowed to use it (including a possible single edit).

So the sampling artist can't go and reuse B artist's song for another and entirely different song as well. Not without a different deal in place for that different song.

Hell, maybe some artists get both, a smaller upfront fee, and a point or half a point or whatever on an album to get residuals from sales.

That said, if someone sampled a McVie, or Crosby, or whoever song in the past, and they are getting residuals from subsequent sales of their sample, then that would be part of the deal with Hipgnosis because it's a publishing issue.

TrivialPursuit said:
If they sampled A song from B artist, then whatever deal was made for B artist to be paid, would then go to Hipgnosis.

I would also imagine that B artist is getting paid one of two ways:

1) they have a point on the album, so they get $X per album or single (with their sample) sold; or

2) they were paid a flat fee for using the song in a particular song and only that version is allowed to use it (including a possible single edit).

I'm talking about the case of Beastie Boys selling their publishing for the songs on Paul's Boutique. Not how about how the owners of the original songs get paid from the song that used the sample. Some of the songs on Paul's Boutique are not like U Can't Touch This where it's only using the instrumental track of Superfreak. One song might contain 10 different samples of just one word from several records. So how would the Beasties sell the publishing of a particular song since they're not the only writers, it includes the writers of the original songs that are sampled. Would a sale only include their portion of the song? Even with the MC Hammer song, can Hammer sell the publishing without the Rick James part, or does whoever owns Rick's publishing have to approve? Or is it considered the same as people actually writing together like Gamble & Huff?

MickyDolenz said:

TrivialPursuit said:
If they sampled A song from B artist, then whatever deal was made for B artist to be paid, would then go to Hipgnosis.

I would also imagine that B artist is getting paid one of two ways:

1) they have a point on the album, so they get $X per album or single (with their sample) sold; or

2) they were paid a flat fee for using the song in a particular song and only that version is allowed to use it (including a possible single edit).

I'm talking about the case of Beastie Boys selling their publishing for the songs on Paul's Boutique. Not how about how the owners of the original songs get paid from the song that used the sample. Some of the songs on Paul's Boutique are not like U Can't Touch This where it's only using the instrumental track of Superfreak. One song might contain 10 different samples of just one word from several records. So how would the Beasties sell the publishing of a particular song since they're not the only writers, it includes the writers of the original songs that are sampled. Would a sale only include their portion of the song? Even with the MC Hammer song, can Hammer sell the publishing without the Rick James part, or does whoever owns Rick's publishing have to approve? Or is it considered the same as people actually writing together like Gamble & Huff?

I know. I'm just expanding on that topic of sampling and when someone sells their publishing. General statement, is all.

MickyDolenz said:

TrivialPursuit said:
If they sampled A song from B artist, then whatever deal was made for B artist to be paid, would then go to Hipgnosis.

I would also imagine that B artist is getting paid one of two ways:

1) they have a point on the album, so they get $X per album or single (with their sample) sold; or

2) they were paid a flat fee for using the song in a particular song and only that version is allowed to use it (including a possible single edit).

I'm talking about the case of Beastie Boys selling their publishing for the songs on Paul's Boutique. Not how about how the owners of the original songs get paid from the song that used the sample. Some of the songs on Paul's Boutique are not like U Can't Touch This where it's only using the instrumental track of Superfreak. One song might contain 10 different samples of just one word from several records. So how would the Beasties sell the publishing of a particular song since they're not the only writers, it includes the writers of the original songs that are sampled. Would a sale only include their portion of the song? Even with the MC Hammer song, can Hammer sell the publishing without the Rick James part, or does whoever owns Rick's publishing have to approve? Or is it considered the same as people actually writing together like Gamble & Huff?

Unless they made a deal with the original artist(s) for either a percent or a fee, then they ARE the only writers. If someone like a Gamble and/or Huff owns a % of the publishing on the song, they can go sell their part so someone else can get those royalties. MC Hammer had Bust-It Publishing, and he can go sell HIS portion of "Pray" without asking (the estate of) Prince. It's like they are in a band together. When Stevie Nicks sold HER publishing, it was just her % of whatever she owned of her writing-- even Fleetwood Mac.