If you’ve heard Queen’s megahit ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ in an advert, film trailer or thrown into radio and streaming playlists once again, it’s not a coincidence, and don’t worry, you haven’t time travelled back to 1975 or to the marketing blitz for Wayne’s World.
It’s the consequence of a landmark song publishing deal, where the surviving members of Queen have seen the biggest payday yet of their tenured, stratospheric careers. Queen has sold their entire back catalogue to Sony for $1.27 billion in the most expensive acquisition of an artist’s intellectual property that we’ve seen thus far.
With such a hefty price tag, Sony now has to work its investment. Sony has achieved carte blanche to profit from Queen’s catalogue in any way they wish, with no barrier to approval from the artist in how their work is used. The re-emergence of older music back into the public consciousness has proven financially rewarding, and those with the gravitas to acquire the lucrative jewel of song rights are set to see huge, consistent long-term returns.
Read more:
The two options for musicians: Struggle to survive or ask your parents
It’s just not enough to have that one big hit, that one big tour, or that one big brand deal anymore to have it made in today’s music industry. Rights and ownership, and the success of the properties that they’re attached to, are powerful in whoever’s hands hold them. Intense bidding wars are igniting for the rights of popular back catalogues, and the bets have been placed on the future financial value of older intellectual property.
For Bruce Springsteen (catalogue sold for $500 million), KISS ($300m), and Bob Dylan ($300m) there is a perfectly valid argument to cash out as veterans in their twilight years. Yet the enrichment of the already rich rings hollow otherwise. Creative ownership is more than the desire for money. Do these artists not want to place their ownership in a way that has the motive to care for and preserve their work and legacy? And does anyone really want to hear ‘Born to Run’ on every advert for Nike running shoes until the end of time?
These deals are not just happening with older music veterans. Modern acts such as popstar Katy Perry and mainstream rock band Imagine Dragons have also made big windfalls from selling their catalogues. These contemporary musicians are looking toward a depreciating economic future, where consistent royalties from decade-old hits are not enough to stem the approaching tide of the rapidly turning cultural cycle.
Such acts are worth a lot to the industry at point of relevance, but there are no guarantees that they won’t fall into the void of our cultural memory. It’s a financial prospect that someone like Perry would find difficult to turn down given her continuing declining relevancy and the chance that previous hits won’t be as lucrative once the spotlight is finally turned away from her.
Read more:
When I surpassed the 27 Club, I couldn’t romanticise rock stars anymore
The natural allies of these deals are the major recording labels, who already acquire rights ownership from artists as soon as they sign on the dotted line. Often the veteran musicians selling their catalogues have had to fight for ownership of their work in the past, as especially crooked and exploitative as recording contracts were in the 1960s and 1970s. Now they seem to be in a place where money talks and labels are more than happy to name a price to regain that power over their old material.
The biggest beneficiaries of this trend are private music publishing companies that have made acquisitions their main business model. Private publishing companies stand to gain everything from acquiring large tried-and-true back catalogues. Song management company Hipgnosis currently holds a catalogue with a net asset value of over $3bn, with such acquisitions as a large stake in Neil Young’s catalogue and full ownership of Blondie’s work, among many, many others. There is little reason to believe the vast worth of their portfolio won’t continue to snowball into the future.
Popular and important works in the grip of private equity may lead to massive profits for said companies and a huge payday for the musicians involved, but it can only lead to a long, sad process of cultural devaluation. The profit-driven investment side of the music business cares little about the integrity and significance of the work they’re looking to make big returns on. While ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ is overexposed to the point of becoming almost meaningless iconography to many, artists like Neil Young and Bob Dylan have, all things considered, been able to protect their work and legacy until now.
Many of the musicians selling off their work have played prominent roles in the zeitgeist of the twentieth century, but the landscape looks very different now. We are shifting into new modes of profit-making in the creative world, and the signs of putting art and expression above commerce and business are becoming fewer and farther between.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here