Wow everyone is selling out.

Hey, you can't take it with you!

This is the best retirement plan for any musician!

...or any business owner!

PennyPurple said:

Wow everyone is selling out.

That's a stereotypical response to situations like this; situations that have been greatly explained and make sense.

Diamond also suffers from Parkinson's disease. He retired from touring and immediately canceled all his future tour dates, in 2018. He's four years into that diagnosis, and while he still has years ahead of him, he certainly doesn't need to sit on music that isn't making money.

The dude is eighty-one years old with thirty-two studio albums, eight live albums, and ninety-four singles. He's had his day with his music. Now's the time he can sit back and actually enjoy the spoils of that to the fullest. And take care of himself.

These companies can buy the music, the artist can live the rest of their lives quite comfortably on the income, and the music will forever be preserved and distributed over time. That's not selling out.

What do fans expect artists to do???? This is a much different time, and we all know streaming is a void. If an artist is over 60 or 70, sell that shit, make that money and leave the rest for the loves ones around you. It's a valid option.

Not like he's selling it to a laundormat or car dealership.

I just wonder what the buyers are getting out of buying these. Most artists just have a few songs that are popular enough to get regular requests for licensing. Which are most likely the ones that get played all the time on oldies stations or classic rock radio (ig. Take On Me, Bad To The Bone, Freebird, Low Rider). Like I've heard Let's Get In On by Marvin Gaye in several commercials, but notThat's The Way Love Is. I doubt there are many requests to use Revolution 9 in TV/movies/advertising or sampling.

TrivialPursuit said:

PennyPurple said:

Wow everyone is selling out.

That's a stereotypical response to situations like this; situations that have been greatly explained and make sense.

Diamond also suffers from Parkinson's disease. He retired from touring and immediately canceled all his future tour dates, in 2018. He's four years into that diagnosis, and while he still has years ahead of him, he certainly doesn't need to sit on music that isn't making money.

The dude is eighty-one years old with thirty-two studio albums, eight live albums, and ninety-four singles. He's had his day with his music. Now's the time he can sit back and actually enjoy the spoils of that to the fullest. And take care of himself.

These companies can buy the music, the artist can live the rest of their lives quite comfortably on the income, and the music will forever be preserved and distributed over time. That's not selling out.

What do fans expect artists to do???? This is a much different time, and we all know streaming is a void. If an artist is over 60 or 70, sell that shit, make that money and leave the rest for the loves ones around you. It's a valid option.

Not like he's selling it to a laundormat or car dealership.

Who said it was a bad thing?

Personally I think it's pretty smart, and again everyone is starting to do this.

PennyPurple said:

Who said it was a bad thing?

Personally I think it's pretty smart, and again everyone is starting to do this.

You said, "Wow everyone is selling out. "

"Selling out" has a negative connotation. No one says that with a positive spin. "Oh wow, Prince sold out 'Housequake' for a car commercial. Awesome!" Bullshit. It's a diss to an artist to say they "sold out."

But is it smart for older artists? Probably. Too bad folks like Little Richard couldn't have done the same thing.

MickyDolenz said:

I just wonder what the buyers are getting out of buying these. Most artists just have a few songs that are popular enough to get regular requests for licensing. Which are most likely the ones that get played all the time on oldies stations or classic rock radio (ig. Take On Me, Bad To The Bone, Freebird, Low Rider). Like I've heard Let's Get In On by Marvin Gaye in several commercials, but notThat's The Way Love Is. I doubt there are many requests to use Revolution 9 in TV/movies/advertising or sampling.

The company doing the most deals said they are founded on "predictable income", so that's why they're not buying my catalog, but they are buying Neil Diamond's.

TrivialPursuit said:

PennyPurple said:

Who said it was a bad thing?

Personally I think it's pretty smart, and again everyone is starting to do this.

You said, "Wow everyone is selling out. "

"Selling out" has a negative connotation. No one says that with a positive spin. "Oh wow, Prince sold out 'Housequake' for a car commercial. Awesome!" Bullshit. It's a diss to an artist to say they "sold out."

But is it smart for older artists? Probably. Too bad folks like Little Richard couldn't have done the same thing.

YOU SELL OUT!

Cinny said:

The company doing the most deals said they are founded on "predictable income", so that's why they're not buying my catalog, but they are buying Neil Diamond's.

I think someone like Bob Dylan is primarily popular with boomers and they're either dying or if they're interested in Dylan, they have his records already. He's not like The Beatles or KISS which are brands that sell all kinds of things, not just music. In my entire life, I've never heard Bob Dylan on the radio, unless you count We Are The World. When that came out, I'd never heard of him, and apparently none of the people around me had either. The songs I've later found out were Dylan's were remakes by other people. I didn't know they were remakes, because I'd never heard the originals. Also, it seems to me that it's his 1960s music that is the most popular

If individual albums don't sell much today, what is this predictable income? I don't think they're going to get it from streaming income. Companies who want to license songs aren't going to use every song in a catalog. There isn't going to be a Broadway play based on the music of every singer/band.

Well Neil is doing the smart thing, I hope people realize that this is all because of the streaming world now, and how at some point the industry is going to realize that they are dumbing down music so much and creating this quick hit and gone system that they will end up all gone. Older artists will do this because as they age they dont want the hassle of "estates and wills and fights" so they give it to a compnay for a price and basically let them do it. Just "Sweet Caroline" alone for Neil as much as they song is played requested etc....he probably makes more money on that then the current Top 100 songs added together. At some point they will all do it, and its funny how people say albums dont sell now, well in terms of the hey day of these artists that is true but these artists like a Springsteen at 70 whatever could realize a studio album tomorrow and its number one, he will always have that loyal base, sure he wont have gold records anymore, but NO ONE does anymore especially the younger acts who get all the play and visual time, they should be selling BUT CANT because the system is not set to sell them anymore.

MickyDolenz said:

In my entire life, I've never heard Bob Dylan on the radio, unless you count We Are The World. When that came out, I'd never heard of him, and apparently none of the people around me had either.

I'd certainly heard of Bob Dylan by 1985, and I was only 17.

However, I guess the one other time, besides WATW, that I would've heard Dylan on the radio was during the Traveling Wilbury days. They had a handful of big radio hits.

I remember hearing U2's "All Along The Watchtower" way before I ever tried to hear Dylan's version.

I heard Cher sing "All I Really Want To Do" first. Still haven't heard Dylan's version.

"Forever Young" - Rod Stewart first.

"Knockin' On Heaven's Door" - no idea who was first.

"Make You Feel My Love" - Adele first.

"This Wheel's On Fire" - theme song to Absolutely Fabulous.

I can't even begin to remember the first version of "Blowin' In The Wind" but in the 70s it was all over the place.

This is a morbid thought but imagine if Prince had been able to negotiate something like this before he passed. I can't imagine a bigger future musical death than Bob Dylan. And you know how every artist's catalog gets a boost of revenue. That could be the reason for "predictable" income.

Cinny said:

This is a morbid thought but imagine if Prince had been able to negotiate something like this before he passed. I can't imagine a bigger future musical death than Bob Dylan. And you know how every artist's catalog gets a boost of revenue. That could be the reason for "predictable" income.

If Prince were still here, he should have given everything up except for "Purple Rain", "Kiss" and "Manic Monday".

nayroo2002 said:

If Prince were still here, he should have given everything up except for "Purple Rain", "Kiss" and "Manic Monday".

And "When Doves Cry."

TrivialPursuit said:

Yep times change and the music apparently isn't worth anything anymore to the artists.

Just a few years ago artists were clammouring for their catalogues and masters.

Now they can't wait to give them away.

I read a recent article that said that the catalogue is the ultimate retirement plan. So if you're a spendthrift selling your catalogue might not be a good idea.

Like say buying a $50 million home or something.

CynicKill said:

Yep times change and the music apparently isn't worth anything anymore to the artists.

Just a few years ago artists were clammouring for their catalogues and masters.

Now they can't wait to give them away.

I read a recent article that said that the catalogue is the ultimate retirement plan. So if you're a spendthrift selling your catalogue might not be a good idea.

Like say buying a $50 million home or something.

Has nothing to do with why these artists are selling catalogs, artists like Dylan, Paul Simon and others Have more money than the whole top 100 song artists right now. Most are doing this because they are not going to tour anymore for the most part as though COVID restrictions are disappearing, an 80 year old Paul Simon is not going to mount a tour. ALSO these artists are constantly asked for licensing in films and soundtracks, compilations or even thier own labels to do reissues. THIS takes all that business out of their hands and lets someone come in and do the work. "Music not being worth anything to the artists" you need to apply that to the younger folks who have 22 songwriters and 11 producers on repetitive trap beats like everyone else. That music is throw away, and even more throw away to the public you sell too. AS PRince said "You get the audience you deserve" and the younger generation is in for a big shock, there are NO new Beatles or Dylans or Simons and Joels coming. These artists selling catalogs now know what they are doing I can guarantee you that. I guarantee to you that Bob Dylan has more say in "who licenses his song" even if he has sold that catalog.

nayroo2002 said:

Hey, you can't take it with you!

This is the best retirement plan for any musician!

...or any business owner!

A legacy insurance for their children / offspring.

SolaceAHA said:

CynicKill said:

Yep times change and the music apparently isn't worth anything anymore to the artists.

Just a few years ago artists were clammouring for their catalogues and masters.

Now they can't wait to give them away.

I read a recent article that said that the catalogue is the ultimate retirement plan. So if you're a spendthrift selling your catalogue might not be a good idea.

Like say buying a $50 million home or something.

Has nothing to do with why these artists are selling catalogs, artists like Dylan, Paul Simon and others Have more money than the whole top 100 song artists right now. Most are doing this because they are not going to tour anymore for the most part as though COVID restrictions are disappearing, an 80 year old Paul Simon is not going to mount a tour. ALSO these artists are constantly asked for licensing in films and soundtracks, compilations or even thier own labels to do reissues. THIS takes all that business out of their hands and lets someone come in and do the work. "Music not being worth anything to the artists" you need to apply that to the younger folks who have 22 songwriters and 11 producers on repetitive trap beats like everyone else. That music is throw away, and even more throw away to the public you sell too. AS PRince said "You get the audience you deserve" and the younger generation is in for a big shock, there are NO new Beatles or Dylans or Simons and Joels coming. These artists selling catalogs now know what they are doing I can guarantee you that. I guarantee to you that Bob Dylan has more say in "who licenses his song" even if he has sold that catalog.

Is that so?

I always figured when you sold your catalogue you gave up any claims to the songs.

CynicKill said:

SolaceAHA said:

Has nothing to do with why these artists are selling catalogs, artists like Dylan, Paul Simon and others Have more money than the whole top 100 song artists right now. Most are doing this because they are not going to tour anymore for the most part as though COVID restrictions are disappearing, an 80 year old Paul Simon is not going to mount a tour. ALSO these artists are constantly asked for licensing in films and soundtracks, compilations or even thier own labels to do reissues. THIS takes all that business out of their hands and lets someone come in and do the work. "Music not being worth anything to the artists" you need to apply that to the younger folks who have 22 songwriters and 11 producers on repetitive trap beats like everyone else. That music is throw away, and even more throw away to the public you sell too. AS PRince said "You get the audience you deserve" and the younger generation is in for a big shock, there are NO new Beatles or Dylans or Simons and Joels coming. These artists selling catalogs now know what they are doing I can guarantee you that. I guarantee to you that Bob Dylan has more say in "who licenses his song" even if he has sold that catalog.

Is that so?

I always figured when you sold your catalogue you gave up any claims to the songs.

Depends on the artist and how the deal is structured. I would almost bet in negotiations some laid out why they were selling and what and IF there was something they did not want the music used for. I mean like any other deal or contract, I am sure both sides are looking for what they want. A Quarterback like a Patrick Mahomes might sign his deal at 450 million and we think "oh thats it" but they also have clauses in their contracts, stipulations, incentives, no trade clauses (not wanting to go to a certain team) so I can easily see a Dylan or STING saying I dont want you giving my song to a politician that they dont like, or something of that nature, or a film they feel goes against what they believe or has violence towards women or whatever. Its not sign it and all of a sudden Dylans music is in Toilet paper commercials

It's called rent seeking. Po folks don't have that option.

The man was also diagnosed with Parkinson's so cut him some slack, he has been a singer songwriter pop star etc...for a long time and till his diagnosis in 2018 he still was selling out huge venues . Maybe he would like a company running his business after he is gone, this is why today's artists are going to get screwed long term, with twenty writers and ten producers on a track good luck with that publishing