6 ms·

It will be industry-wide game over when they grab Max Martin and Lukasz Gottwald https://nypost.com/2015/10/04/your-favorite-song-on-the-radio-was-probably-writ

It will be industry-wide game over when they grab Max Martin and Lukasz Gottwald https://nypost.com/2015/10/04/your-favorite-song-on-the-radio-was-probably-written-by-these-two/ https://nypost.com/2015/10/04/your-favorite-song-on-the-radi... I think the goal is to launch the next ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and basically charge astronomical rates for songs people want to hear. Songwriters will love it and artists will have no choice. This is pretty much a confirmation: "Along with owning a bigger chunk of the publishing market, he wants to continue altering it. He’s considering launching a songwriter’s union, something akin to the Screenwriters Guild, that would give songwriters more leverage to extract better deals from the industry’s power brokers." It's a public company. I might want to buy some stock in it when I can.

doh 7y ago
> I think the goal is to launch the next ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and basically charge astronomical rates for songs people want to hear. Songwriters will love it and artists will have no choice. In US, for mechanical royalties, the rates are set by government. So yes, they could charge whatever they want for live and synch, but that would have much smaller impact on the general population.
- MaxGabriel 7y ago
  For anyone else who didn’t know, synchronization rights let you use the music for TV, movies, commercials, and some more things https://entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/music-industry/synchronization-rights/ https://entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/music-industry/synchron...
- wahern 7y ago
  I believe negotiated rates are often lower than compulsory rates, for a variety of reasons I couldn't begin to fully comprehend except in the abstract. This may be less true in the digital streaming realm, but it's hard to tell through all the rhetoric.
walshemj 7y ago
Its Listed on the LSE with the code SONG
bsder 7y ago
It's unsurprising though. There was a leaked Sony memo that showed that most of profits come from back catalog and most of their losses are from new artist development. The memo: https://sriramk.com/memos/goldberg-music.pdf https://sriramk.com/memos/goldberg-music.pdf
- sjwright 7y ago
  Makes sense given that making new music is easier than ever before—the people who do it for the love of music are probably already making good-enough recordings on a shoestring. Just look at Vulfpeck: they've had massive success just doing everything themselves.[0] What have the labels got to compete with talented artists with a few grand of equipment in their bedroom? A bunch of commercially-minded manufactured acts pumping out me-too crap while countless layers of expensive executives and expensive "experts" polish away anything human from the art? Labels used to be successful because making recordings was expensive. Then it was because they held the keys to distribution and radio. Now it's... what? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv4wf7bzfFE&t=475 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv4wf7bzfFE&t=475
  - bsder 7y ago
    There's a couple of BIG qualifications on your comments. 1) Vulfpeck slid through the YouTube music window about 2010-2012 that has since closed (that also produced Beiber, Jepsen, Psy with "Gangnam Style" etc.). 2) Vulfpeck were the backing musicians for Darren Criss who was very much a product of the standard system. 3) They are probably the antithesis that making new music is easier. They save a LOT of money because they can get away with doing minimal production because they are SOOO smoking good. If you have to be at the level of Vulfpeck to make a living making music, then basically nobody is going to be able to do so.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      I only mention Vulfpeck because they're at the pinnacle of their genre, not because they're the threshold. There's plenty of opportunity for anyone. Look at akageorge. (If you can—previously known as George Barnett, he seems to have reset his identity and thrown away much of his earlier material.) He's a self-evidently brilliant musician who can write and perform every part of a radio-ready hit. To the extent anyone makes money in music, he could make it if he bothered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK-UcQ6T2Lg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK-UcQ6T2Lg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvJCZr8BjUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvJCZr8BjUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkzJPoehZf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkzJPoehZf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ofkJfXJpNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ofkJfXJpNs
peteretep 7y ago
> It's a public company. I might want to buy some stock in it when I can. Why, what’s the information advantage you have over the market?
- pascalxus 7y ago
  I don't know why this is being downvoted, this is an excellent question. it's commonly known that companies/stocks are priced using all available information thus an advantage the company may have is already priced in, hence why some highly successful companies trade at very high PEs.
- wiseleo 7y ago
  I like the concept. I believe the value of back catalogs will only increase. As they increasingly corner the market, there should be a corresponding value increase in stock. What's not to like?
  - peteretep 7y ago
    The thing not to like is the current stock price, because everything that you like about it will have already been analysed in deep detail by the market, and priced in. By investing in a public company, you are saying “I think the market is wrong about the potential for this company”, and I’m curious to know why you think that having read this public piece, you think the company is currently undervalued? The shares are at £109 — what price do you think they should be really?
    - MaximumYComb 7y ago
      Very similar to the attitude I take with sports betting (legal in my country). You don't bet on who you think will win, you bet on who is paying odds that don't reflect your view on the event. I only bet relatively small sums and I don't bet very often (since I don't often find odds that seem poorly priced) but I've won way more than I've lost.
    - erpellan 7y ago
      When I invest it’s usually because I think “I like this dividend yield.” I can buy, forget and auto-reinvest the dividends. Stock price swings are not particularly interesting if you never plan to sell.
Gravityloss 7y ago
One can turn that around. There is a lot of good music and talented people around but the machinery around music media and distribution and life style is such that most people end up listening the same few composers and artists world wide. So it might look that the composer or artist themselves are somehow unbelievably special. The talent shows for example have produced quite many popular artists here. One could see that as "see, anyone can be successful!". Or one can see that the machinery can choose which talented and hard working people they make "successful". The journalism around music is especially naive. They constantly mix up people, phenomena, music, promotion and popularity happily. People to a surprising degree like what they think they are supposed to like.
aguyfromnb 7y ago
Fortunately,demand also plays a part in price setting, and simply charging astronomical prices is a sure way to increase piracy or open new markets.

doh 7y ago

> I think the goal is to launch the next ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and basically charge astronomical rates for songs people want to hear. Songwriters will love it and artists will have no choice. In US, for mechanical royalties, the rates are set by government. So yes, they could charge whatever they want for live and synch, but that would have much smaller impact on the general population.

MaxGabriel 7y ago
For anyone else who didn’t know, synchronization rights let you use the music for TV, movies, commercials, and some more things https://entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/music-industry/synchronization-rights/ https://entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/music-industry/synchron...
wahern 7y ago
I believe negotiated rates are often lower than compulsory rates, for a variety of reasons I couldn't begin to fully comprehend except in the abstract. This may be less true in the digital streaming realm, but it's hard to tell through all the rhetoric.

walshemj 7y ago

Its Listed on the LSE with the code SONG

bsder 7y ago

It's unsurprising though. There was a leaked Sony memo that showed that most of profits come from back catalog and most of their losses are from new artist development. The memo: https://sriramk.com/memos/goldberg-music.pdf https://sriramk.com/memos/goldberg-music.pdf

sjwright 7y ago
Makes sense given that making new music is easier than ever before—the people who do it for the love of music are probably already making good-enough recordings on a shoestring. Just look at Vulfpeck: they've had massive success just doing everything themselves.[0] What have the labels got to compete with talented artists with a few grand of equipment in their bedroom? A bunch of commercially-minded manufactured acts pumping out me-too crap while countless layers of expensive executives and expensive "experts" polish away anything human from the art? Labels used to be successful because making recordings was expensive. Then it was because they held the keys to distribution and radio. Now it's... what? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv4wf7bzfFE&t=475 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv4wf7bzfFE&t=475
- bsder 7y ago
  There's a couple of BIG qualifications on your comments. 1) Vulfpeck slid through the YouTube music window about 2010-2012 that has since closed (that also produced Beiber, Jepsen, Psy with "Gangnam Style" etc.). 2) Vulfpeck were the backing musicians for Darren Criss who was very much a product of the standard system. 3) They are probably the antithesis that making new music is easier. They save a LOT of money because they can get away with doing minimal production because they are SOOO smoking good. If you have to be at the level of Vulfpeck to make a living making music, then basically nobody is going to be able to do so.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    I only mention Vulfpeck because they're at the pinnacle of their genre, not because they're the threshold. There's plenty of opportunity for anyone. Look at akageorge. (If you can—previously known as George Barnett, he seems to have reset his identity and thrown away much of his earlier material.) He's a self-evidently brilliant musician who can write and perform every part of a radio-ready hit. To the extent anyone makes money in music, he could make it if he bothered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK-UcQ6T2Lg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK-UcQ6T2Lg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvJCZr8BjUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvJCZr8BjUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkzJPoehZf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkzJPoehZf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ofkJfXJpNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ofkJfXJpNs

peteretep 7y ago

> It's a public company. I might want to buy some stock in it when I can. Why, what’s the information advantage you have over the market?

pascalxus 7y ago
I don't know why this is being downvoted, this is an excellent question. it's commonly known that companies/stocks are priced using all available information thus an advantage the company may have is already priced in, hence why some highly successful companies trade at very high PEs.
wiseleo 7y ago
I like the concept. I believe the value of back catalogs will only increase. As they increasingly corner the market, there should be a corresponding value increase in stock. What's not to like?
- peteretep 7y ago
  The thing not to like is the current stock price, because everything that you like about it will have already been analysed in deep detail by the market, and priced in. By investing in a public company, you are saying “I think the market is wrong about the potential for this company”, and I’m curious to know why you think that having read this public piece, you think the company is currently undervalued? The shares are at £109 — what price do you think they should be really?
  - MaximumYComb 7y ago
    Very similar to the attitude I take with sports betting (legal in my country). You don't bet on who you think will win, you bet on who is paying odds that don't reflect your view on the event. I only bet relatively small sums and I don't bet very often (since I don't often find odds that seem poorly priced) but I've won way more than I've lost.
  - erpellan 7y ago
    When I invest it’s usually because I think “I like this dividend yield.” I can buy, forget and auto-reinvest the dividends. Stock price swings are not particularly interesting if you never plan to sell.

Gravityloss 7y ago

One can turn that around. There is a lot of good music and talented people around but the machinery around music media and distribution and life style is such that most people end up listening the same few composers and artists world wide. So it might look that the composer or artist themselves are somehow unbelievably special. The talent shows for example have produced quite many popular artists here. One could see that as "see, anyone can be successful!". Or one can see that the machinery can choose which talented and hard working people they make "successful". The journalism around music is especially naive. They constantly mix up people, phenomena, music, promotion and popularity happily. People to a surprising degree like what they think they are supposed to like.

aguyfromnb 7y ago

Fortunately,demand also plays a part in price setting, and simply charging astronomical prices is a sure way to increase piracy or open new markets.