I am personally torn about this issue.
If a musician, or band, is struggling financially, and has unexpected expenses, such as health issues, then I could understand the need to sell. However, if a band, or musician, is still successful and making money without financial struggles, I am less inclined to look favorably upon it.
Unless there is a way, where the band, or musician, can put a stipulation in the contract that they have a say where their music, likeness, etc. maybe used, once that outside entity takes over the intellectual property, they can easily cheapen a band’s or musician’s legacy, by over saturating the market with their music. For example, using their songs in TV commercials, movies, video games, radio jingles, etc.
Long before selling off their wares, KISS, decided to market the heck out of themselves all on their own. So, selling off their catalog, came as little surprise.
Finally, I remember hearing both Judas Priest‘s Hellion, and You’ve Got Another Thing Comin’, on car commercials, and it made me wince. But, then again, I have heard lots of our music in Super Markets. Just yesterday, I heard Ratt‘s Way Cool Junior in Stop And Shop, and that also made me cringe-LOL! Nothing like hearing arena rock while shopping for grapes.
10 Responses
Personally, unless I was in such dire financial straits that I had zero other options, I would never sell off my entire music catalog. I don’t know how much money people need nowadays, but pretty much everything has come to revolve around money. Kids are being raised in daycares while both parents work because cost of living has skyrocketed because corporation after corporation has to have more money. Greed is evil. It has consumed literally every person, child and infant in the world. Work work work. Career career career. Family time has become increasingly minuscule. People are forced to travel, work on holidays, work on weekends. But most of us aren’t celebrities and so we get pennies while our efforts put big bucks into the pockets of the wealthy who spend most of their time at resorts on beaches and golf courses.
I’m with you Real Paul Stanley. Corporate sellout move is how it strikes me. Not sure how they’ll somehow reach “more” audiences with this move. While a business decision like this is inevitable, it’s a mixed bag.
I think its okay for musicians to sell their music catalog. Musicians sell their music catalogs primarily to secure immediate, guaranteed wealth and to simplify estate planning. By trading future, unpredictable streaming royalties for a massive lump sum, musicians can avoid market volatility and taxes, fund new business ventures, and spare their heirs from managing complex copyright portfolios.
I just think it makes good financial sense for musicians to sell their catalogs when they get closer to the end of their careers. Its just smart estate planning.
I see no problem with this whatsoever. As for losing control over how their music is used (loss of synchronization rights), they take that into account when the price for the catalog is set. Also, it’s not like selling a used car and someone else drives off with it forever. Artists like Springsteen or KISS are still the greatest “brand ambassador” for their catalog. When they tour or perform, they make money and song/album sales also go up. The catalog sale also ensures that their music won’t fade or be forgotten once the band or artist is gone because the new owner will want to keep the music alive to get return on their investment. As for old-school fans, their favorite artists/music are exposed to new generations of fans when the songs appear in new formats and platforms (commercials, movies, etc.). So it’s win-win for everyone.
And as for the argument that artists are “selling out,” aren’t they selling out every time they put out an album or perform – and make money from it? Is this really THAT different?
Is this really THAT different?
RTunes,
Yes, I believe there is a difference, in the sense that once the catalog is sold, the creator of the music has limited, or a complete loss of control, over their intellectual property.
As I wrote above, once that happens, the integrity of the product could cheapen, especially if the owning entity does not share the same vision, as the artist, for said product.
I view it this way, it is akin to famous works of art being printed on blankets, pillowcases, diary covers, mugs, etc. If Michelangelo were alive today, to see how the image of his magnificent statue of The David, has been exploited, I think he would very upset, and that is understatement.
I just hope that when these artists make these business decisions, they are fully aware of what could become of their product. That is why I wrote about KISS, as they were the originators of marketing the heck out of themselves. So, their selling off their catalog, images, etc. should come as no surprise to their fans.
I think when it’s a band, who never seemed to care about that stuff, that is when the fans begin worry about the integrity, and the future legacy, of the band.
I’m ok with bands selling their stuff. I like Rattlehead and RTunes68 responses. It occurs to me that most bands that do this are people in their 60s and older. I’m 62, and pretty much everyone I know is looking to simplify their life whether they are wealthy, retired, or still working hard. You get tired of dealing with stuff in life, and if there are things you can kiss off, you do it. Managing a massive catalog, while that job usually belongs to someone else, still requires the people in the band to sign things, do meetings, and to just think about what is going on with their music. Selling it off puts the marketing job in someone else’s hands, and all those concerns just go away. It’s like cleaning out your garage, musically. Not that Iron Maiden’s catalog is something you put away in the garage, but selling a catalog is the rich musician’s way of downsizing. Everybody does it at a certain age. Anyone want to buy a comic book collection?
Dana,
I totally get your point from a purist’s sense. However, I do question whether Michelangelo would have objections to the commercialization of his works. I think Warhol blew that “artistic purity and pretension” out the window when he commercialized everything. Same with Picasso, Dali, Koons, Banksy, etc. Michelangelo’s works emblazoned on mugs and blankets – yes, it “cheapens” it on a purist level – speaks to both his lasting impact and keeping him relevant for new generations who might not otherwise even be aware of him. And my point is that the same can be said for music. Music and songs – art – have long become commodities. I think artists who are selling their catalogs are fully aware of the ramifications. And as others have said here, it is a good business decision for their personal finances and estates, AND, again, it potentially extends the impact of their works in perpetuity.
Okay, I guess I am a “purist.” LOL!!!