In what may be the biggest single-artist music-catalog deal to date, a report in Billboard claims that Bruce Springsteen has sold his entire recorded-music and publishing catalog to Sony Music for around $500 million, topping Bob Dylan’s sale of his publishing to Universal for nearly $400 million.

Reps for Springsteen and Sony Music either declined or did not respond to Variety’s requests for comment, but three industry sources say they believe the report is accurate.

News of negotiations first arose early last month; while there has been no official comment, sources said the recorded-music deal — which includes such multiplatinum albums as “Born in the U.S.A.,” “Born to Run” and “Darkness on the Edge of Town” — was completed but the publishing was still in play, between Universal and Sony. While the number of $350 million was initially forecast, apparently the bidding intensified.

While Springsteen has been with Sony Music’s Columbia Records since he first signed with the label in 1972, he acquired the rights to his music as part of a contract renegotiation at some point during the 1990s; such moves are rarely reported but become evident in the fine print on a release.

Selling the rights to their music is anathema to many artists, but as they reach or pass standard retirement age and begin estate planning, a sale is an attractive option — especially today, as song catalogs are hitting previously unimagined valuations and artists consider the realities of leaving their heirs with a valuable but cumbersome asset; song catalogs in particular require extensive management to optimize their value.

More behind the source.

TrivialPursuit said:

In what may be the biggest single-artist music-catalog deal to date, a report in Billboard claims that Bruce Springsteen has sold his entire recorded-music and publishing catalog to Sony Music for around $500 million, topping Bob Dylan’s sale of his publishing to Universal for nearly $400 million.

Reps for Springsteen and Sony Music either declined or did not respond to Variety’s requests for comment, but three industry sources say they believe the report is accurate.

News of negotiations first arose early last month; while there has been no official comment, sources said the recorded-music deal — which includes such multiplatinum albums as “Born in the U.S.A.,” “Born to Run” and “Darkness on the Edge of Town” — was completed but the publishing was still in play, between Universal and Sony. While the number of $350 million was initially forecast, apparently the bidding intensified.

While Springsteen has been with Sony Music’s Columbia Records since he first signed with the label in 1972, he acquired the rights to his music as part of a contract renegotiation at some point during the 1990s; such moves are rarely reported but become evident in the fine print on a release.

Selling the rights to their music is anathema to many artists, but as they reach or pass standard retirement age and begin estate planning, a sale is an attractive option — especially today, as song catalogs are hitting previously unimagined valuations and artists consider the realities of leaving their heirs with a valuable but cumbersome asset; song catalogs in particular require extensive management to optimize their value.

More behind the source.

this is a no-brainer for him and some will see it as "selling out" but Bruce has had a whole career at that label and reality is he is older now, and wants this taken care of now so something is passed down to his kids etc...

With streaming and the lack of people actually buying albums and touring...this is going to keep on going for our veteran artists.

As my uncle Shan once said, there is no health care plan, 401K and pension for many artists, so this would at least keep them going for a while and something to pass on to thier family.

[Edited 12/16/21 10:05am]

lastdecember said:

TrivialPursuit said:

In what may be the biggest single-artist music-catalog deal to date, a report in Billboard claims that Bruce Springsteen has sold his entire recorded-music and publishing catalog to Sony Music for around $500 million, topping Bob Dylan’s sale of his publishing to Universal for nearly $400 million.

Reps for Springsteen and Sony Music either declined or did not respond to Variety’s requests for comment, but three industry sources say they believe the report is accurate.

News of negotiations first arose early last month; while there has been no official comment, sources said the recorded-music deal — which includes such multiplatinum albums as “Born in the U.S.A.,” “Born to Run” and “Darkness on the Edge of Town” — was completed but the publishing was still in play, between Universal and Sony. While the number of $350 million was initially forecast, apparently the bidding intensified.

While Springsteen has been with Sony Music’s Columbia Records since he first signed with the label in 1972, he acquired the rights to his music as part of a contract renegotiation at some point during the 1990s; such moves are rarely reported but become evident in the fine print on a release.

Selling the rights to their music is anathema to many artists, but as they reach or pass standard retirement age and begin estate planning, a sale is an attractive option — especially today, as song catalogs are hitting previously unimagined valuations and artists consider the realities of leaving their heirs with a valuable but cumbersome asset; song catalogs in particular require extensive management to optimize their value.

More behind the source.

this is a no-brainer for him and some will see it as "selling out" but Bruce has had a whole career at that label and reality is he is older now, and wants this taken care of now so something is passed down to his kids etc...

Coorect me if I'm wrong but don't these sales mean that nothing will get handed down to any heirs?

Milty2 said:

lastdecember said:

this is a no-brainer for him and some will see it as "selling out" but Bruce has had a whole career at that label and reality is he is older now, and wants this taken care of now so something is passed down to his kids etc...

Coorect me if I'm wrong but don't these sales mean that nothing will get handed down to any heirs?

The chore that Prince handed to his family by having nothing organized is probably not as nice as 500M in the bank to divy up.

Milty2 said:

Milty2 said:

lastdecember said:

this is a no-brainer for him and some will see it as "selling out" but Bruce has had a whole career at that label and reality is he is older now, and wants this taken care of now so something is passed down to his kids etc...

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't these sales mean that nothing will get handed down to any heirs?

You mean except the $500,000,000, plus whatever millions he already has in his bank account, plus property, land, etc? It was noted that in 1990, during a renegotiation, he gained control of his music (presumably his masters). That means for the last 31 years, he's gotten more than the lion's share of back catalog sales and reissues.

I can't imagine Bruce would have no say-so in how future things were packaged and distributed. (Remasters, SDE, whatever.)

I'd truly love to know those details of these sort of sell outs (not a negative term here) when it comes to repackaging, future ideas, etc.

.

.

Isn't the title a bit misleading? Bruce got $500MM for recorded music AND publishing while Dylan got $400MM for publishing alone.

Hamad said:

Something fishy is going on. These labels are spending long money for these publishings, where the hell are they getting all this money from since we keep hearing about the industry going down financially? There has to be some revenue from the other side, right? Unless, they are the ones that get paid from these streamings while the artists get crumbs.

labels have plenty of money, the big ones are not hurting at all. Labels are still getting paid a lot on streaming. That's why I really feel at some point independent musicians and artists are going to have to force the hand of streaming companies. The music streaming and the way artists are treated and paid out is criminal, and it's not comparable to how movies and tv is streamed because the actors writers etc...all are paid already got their money etc.... and when things stream they get more. But with music streaming an artist that gets say 100,000 streams on a song, they get a $400 check for that basically that's the average pay on for that many streams and for an indie artist just coming out they aren't getting that many streams. And then worst of all is there is NO physical product, so streaming and digital may be how it is but it's bad long term for artists and musicians, and not talking about ones that have had careers already and made money I'm talking new bands that play and write it's easier to be heard now, because of no label BUT because there's so much out there now it's not a good thing, also long term being an artist and just having singles the labels love that but it's bad for artists.

SantanaMaitreya said:

Milty2 said:

Coorect me if I'm wrong but don't these sales mean that nothing will get handed down to any heirs?

The $ 400 or 500 million will of course be divided among the heirs. That's enough money to last them for the rest of their lives. And they don't have to go through all the trouble that the Prince estate is going through. [Edited 12/16/21 12:17pm]

I actually read it as Bruce's music being handed down to his heirs but yea I get it now. Having said that, I know that $500 million is nothing to sniff at but I'm actually surprised to hear he sold his legacy. I wonder if these artists put stipulations in the agreements like no music can be used for advertising or fivilous promotions?

He's had a long relationship with Columbia and Sony and so I guess he might been able to get certain caveats in there.

[Edited 12/17/21 18:09pm]

SoulAlive said:

It’s a smart move.As artists get older,perhaps they want to simplify things and collect that massive payment now.They wanna get everything in order.

And what a dang legacy to have to be able to leverage for the rest of your damn future. I mean, Bruce probably has another 25 years in him. To live on even 10% of that would be pretty amazing.

TrivialPursuit said:

SoulAlive said:

It’s a smart move.As artists get older,perhaps they want to simplify things and collect that massive payment now.They wanna get everything in order.

And what a dang legacy to have to be able to leverage for the rest of your damn future. I mean, Bruce probably has another 25 years in him. To live on even 10% of that would be pretty amazing.

yep

Milty2 said:

SantanaMaitreya said:

Milty2 said: The $ 400 or 500 million will of course be divided among the heirs. That's enough money to last them for the rest of their lives. And they don't have to go through all the trouble that the Prince estate is going through. [Edited 12/16/21 12:17pm]

I actually read it as Bruce's music being handed down to his heirs but yea I get it now. Having said that, I know that $500 million is nothing to sniff at but I'm actually surprised to hear he sold his legacy. I wonder if these artists put stipulations in the agreements like no music can be used for advertising or fivilous promotions?

He's had a long relationship with Columbia and Sony and so I guess he might been able to get certain caveats in there.

[Edited 12/17/21 18:09pm]

it probably depends on the deal and the artists and what they sign. I recently was watching an interview with a music teacher on you tube and he was reading a letter that was sent that basically said artists tend too do this too not for money, because let's be real, Springsteen and any that have done this have got tons of it already. But what they really want is the music out of the hands of family, and it cited Prince and what is going on with his living heirs half selling off half fighting to keep and artists like Springsteen Dylan Sting and others who have families, want this out of their hands, because once it's turned over and sold to a company when they do pass away, there is no fighting possible will or no will the music is out of their hands, so you want see family fights like Hendrix and Marley and others have,.

Hamad said:

Something fishy is going on. These labels are spending long money for these publishings, where the hell are they getting all this money from since we keep hearing about the industry going down financially? There has to be some revenue from the other side, right? Unless, they are the ones that get paid from these streamings while the artists get crumbs.

I think it's just the Boomer generation of artists finally retiring, also since they won't sign 360 deals (no touring to do).

onlyforaminute said:

I'm getting the impression it's gotten difficult for families to navigate through everything if they aren't already involved and well versed in industry politics, which I'm sure is an ever changing and evolving animal. Why just dump them with something they may have no interest in on top of whatever else they are dealing with in their lives.

Amen. I also wonder if Prince might have had his affairs in order if he made it to 72 (Bruce's age).

Cinny said:

onlyforaminute said:

I'm getting the impression it's gotten difficult for families to navigate through everything if they aren't already involved and well versed in industry politics, which I'm sure is an ever changing and evolving animal. Why just dump them with something they may have no interest in on top of whatever else they are dealing with in their lives.

Amen. I also wonder if Prince might have had his affairs in order if he made it to 72 (Bruce's age).

One of the main reasons artists are selling are because of "death" even if there is a will if this part is not out of the hands of a fight then it will be fought. Michael Hutchence of INXS who died at 37 actually had a will/estate but his family fought bitterly to the point where his daughter who was about 2 at the time of his death, has really seen no money because of fights, the band since its retiring officially in 2012 has been able to get rights to things since the material was written not just by him, so its a little different than a solo act, but I feel if Prince lived and had a will also, there would have been fighting unless the action was taken away. SONY owns Springsteens publishing now, his kids cant fight it after his death.

Cinny said:

lastdecember said:

onlyforaminute said:

Families can always fight over money and pay a zillion lawyers. I dou t think there's a fool proof plan to prevent all that. But there are so much to know about law and music rights from country to country, to add infighting on top of that waste so much. And noone can predict path of technology, someone would really have to really dig in to make the best of it. Obviously the artist is invested doesn't translate to the rest of their family.

Yeah, and sometimes the idea of contesting a will seems highly inappropriate. Why even have one in the first damn place if someone can come along and try to break that covenant?

But I would think that Bruce and Patti have a very well laid out will & last testament, especially including this new vulgar amount of money, so that their children or whoever gets what they feel is appropriate.

I wonder: Can a person write into their will that if any party who is bequeathed money tries to contest the will that their portion is automatically forfeited and donated to charity or otherwise distributed? That'd certainly put some folks in the "shut the fuck up and be grateful" box.

SantanaMaitreya said:

Cinny said:

I think it's just the Boomer generation of artists finally retiring, also since they won't sign 360 deals (no touring to do).

Bob Dylan has just finished a short American tour and plans to go on until 2024.

Yes, but I would not be surprised if he (or any older artist owning a valuable catalog) followed suit, either.

Cinny said:

SantanaMaitreya said:

Cinny said: Bob Dylan has just finished a short American tour and plans to go on until 2024.

Yes, but I would not be surprised if he (or any older artist owning a valuable catalog) followed suit, either.

He already did sell his catalogue.

It REALLY saddens me that Prince(r.i.p.) didn't live long enough to reap the benefits of ownership of both his master recordings and publishing. He fought so hard to get ownership. Even taking control of his publishing himself with the newly named NPG Publishing.

Milty2 said:

lastdecember said:

this is a no-brainer for him and some will see it as "selling out" but Bruce has had a whole career at that label and reality is he is older now, and wants this taken care of now so something is passed down to his kids etc...

Coorect me if I'm wrong but don't these sales mean that nothing will get handed down to any heirs?

He sold his songs for 500 Mio. $. So obviously anything he doesn't get to spend himself will be handed town to his heirs.

SantanaMaitreya said:

Milty2 said:

Coorect me if I'm wrong but don't these sales mean that nothing will get handed down to any heirs?

The $ 400 or 500 million will of course be divided among the heirs. That's enough money to last them for the rest of their lives. And they don't have to go through all the trouble that the Prince estate is going through. [Edited 12/16/21 12:17pm]

Several lives. But really though, why should it?

ChocolateBox3121 said:

It REALLY saddens me that Prince(r.i.p.) didn't live long enough to reap the benefits of ownership of both his master recordings and publishing. He fought so hard to get ownership. Even taking control of his publishing himself with the newly named NPG Publishing.

Well yeah. But he did to a point. He did own everything from 1993 onward under the NPG Records logo. As far as anything before that, he barely got it back before he died. He wasn't poor by any means. He was reaping a lot over time with his sales, and popularity. He lived a unique life.

I think the positive thing here to maybe focus on is that his legacy is in the hands of his estate. It all finally came back home before he died.