"Terms were not disclosed, but a source tells Variety that the deal was easily in nine figures. Since 80% of Stevie Nicks’ publishing catalog was acquired by Primary Wave last week for a reported $100 million, the Dylan catalog probably drew a number well above that."
I read that Imagine Dragons sold all their songs for over $100 million as well. ( https://variety.com/2020/music/news/imagine-dragons-publishi... )
How many times have you seen an artist's oeuvre or author's written works be misused by his or or her descendants?
So him selling them himself allows him to negotiate better conditions and more money, which will do more to protect his legacy than just holding on to them until his death.
The Grammy-winning Las Vegas-based act is one of the most successful rock bands of the past decade, with hits like “Radioactive,” “Demons,” “Believer,” “Thunder” and “Whatever It Takes” from albums band made their mark with their global smash hits from their album “Night Visions,” “Smoke + Mirrors,” “Evolve” and “Origins.”
I've never even heard of these guys, so the fact that their catalog is apparently worth $100M is making me feel old and out of touch. Oh, well.
I remember feeling old when I ... decades ago ... was talking about CDs and the person I was talking to had never owned one.
And now I suspect you can add "analog OTA transmission of music and videos" to that.
My Mom is the only person I know who admits to liking them. We tried to get her Spotify but she wasn't interested.
One day, very soon, the Imagine Dragons will be considered classic rock, but commercial radio will have long bit the dust and there won't be any classic rock stations left to call them it.
After 60 years Dylan has sold less than the Backstreet Boys. He produced relatively few hits compared to other renowned, popular artists. His style of music doesn't lend itself to vast commercial success. Someone will pay a premium to acquire his catalog because he's such a great artist and it's a large & influential catalog, however there is a practical limit to that.
I think you are mis-gauging what happens to music over the course of decades. Bubble gum pop and similarly positioned types of hip-hop etc do very well when they are in fashion, but don’t earn as much consistently over the long haul.
Dylan’s catalogue could plausibly still earn 50 years from now.
Wow, I think that's wildly off the mark. Bob Dylan probably has several billion streams per year, if not more. On Spotify right now, his top 10 songs have a billion streams. Obviously those did not all occur in a single year, but Dylan's catalogue is deep, and Spotify is hardly the only platform.
One billion streams per year is about $4 million on Spotify.
The big revenue comes from film and advertising licensing, we saw this when Michael Jackson (who owned the Beatles back catalog along with Sony who he was in a vicious battle with).
Despite the claims in this article, Jackson didn't sell out many Beatles songs, it was Sony after he died who enabled and profited from Beatles songs in commercials and films. https://www.biography.com/news/michael-jackson-paul-mccartne...
"Four years ago, when Michael Jackson's estate sold the remaining half-share that it owned in the artist's catalogue, it fetched $750 million US."
Important to note that Michael Jackson's catalogue includes Beatles, Taylor Swift, Elvis, Sly and the Family Stone etc.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/bob-dylan-universal-mu...
You take them for family, because you can, to not let it go away, because you want the power that comes with it, and for extravagance. But not for "need".
Little things like that..
Also, inventing is not enough, you need to "develop".
With 3-4 million (less in many countries) all your needs are covered for life. You wont die or have any harmful effect (lack of job, nutricion, housing, clothing, health coverage) when you don't get to have more, except for things common to everybody like natural death, accidents etc.
If you go for more, you do it for various wants, not for needs.
Even when it comes to happiness, there's a plataeu at around that level:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/map-happiness-benchmark_n_559...
Minimum wage is enough for this.
And the link you shared couldn't get the analysis more wrong just to come up with clickbaity title. They are taking average happiness of state and average wage, and even then the data doesn't look like it is plateauing.
Minimum wage? LOL.
Even with a $80,000 salary, in the US a medical or other emergency (e.g. getting fired in a bad economy), can leave you unemployed, homeless, or living with a big debt. Even worse so for your retirement prospects (or lack thereof).
With a few cool million in the bank you don't need to worry about any of those things.
>And the link you shared couldn't get the analysis more wrong just to come up with clickbaity title. They are taking average happiness of state and average wage, and even then the data doesn't look like it is plateauing.
Missed this part, linked to from the article?
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract
Or the fact that "non plateuing" still shows clear diminishing returns...
Why exactly do you think e.g. 10 million will make you any happier than e.g. 5 million (never mind anywhere close to double as happy)?
Give a minimum wage job a try for a couple of years and afterwards let me know if you still believe in that.
That's because you confuse wants and needs. Both the historical understanding of the terms and the dictionary definition are different.
Also, this settles what could have been a pretty thorny inheritance issue.
A lawyer might call this "cold hand" control. He, like every other rich old person, is probably setting up a complex will to control how his wealth functions after his death (the cold hand from the grave). If he gives a song to someone, that person can do what they want with it. They could keep the money. Sell the song. Or just sit on it and let it never be played again. The dead man would not be in control. But if he convert that song into a pile of cash, and inserts that cash into a trust, then the dead man can exercise more direct/itemized control for many years to come.
Give your house to your son and the day after you die he can sell it. But fund a trust to "administer" the house and you can tell the kid he can live in it but never sell it. Even decades later, the dead hand still controls the house and behavior of the child. Rich people do these things. When I was a law student working at a legal clinic, maybe 1/4 of the clients were old people who wanted to leave their house to their daughter but didn't want her to sell the day after they died. My advice was always to not do this because it burdened the daughter immensely. They didn't care. They wanted the house to continue in the family forever regardless.
So you don't want Billy to join the army? What if Billy wants to be a fighter pilot? Then he won't then be living in the house. What if he is offered a great job in New York? Do you want him to turn that job down in order to keep his parents living your house? When Little Billy is 50 years old, and you have been dead for decades, do you still want him opening up your will to ask your permission before he makes a life choice? Instead, how about we let him live in the house until he is 25 and then he can sell it?
On the other hand, "Dweezil Zappa Plays Whatever the F@%k He Wants – The Cease and Desist Tour" is the most Zappa thing ever to Zappa.
Imagination also suffers with age. Old people that enjoy their later years want their kids to enjoy the same life... literally. So they leave the house to the daughter so that she can drop into her parents life. The parents cannot imagine that their daughter has her own perspective. They cannot imagine that the only reason the daughter even lives in town is to help take care of her wealthy parents, that the day after the funeral she will be on a plane to california.