Not a bad idea. Finding avenues to rent-seek seems to be the winning strategy, especially with all the cash floating around looking for returns.
Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog which made him a lot of money.
A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
71–80 of 245 posts
Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#72Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#73all this means is that musicians need to find a way to own their masters. You will never see Chance The Rapper sell his masters for the very reason this guy is buying up rights.
The publishing rights are where the money is. Owning the masters doesn’t help much.
Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#74This new moment of marketization is interesting to observe from the sidelines. I'm a musician but I've never gotten paid for making music and don't want to be. This way, songwriting and playing music can remain something I do purely for the intrinsic joy of it. And it's not really so long ago that, if you wanted music in your house, you had to play it yourself. I have nothing against recorded music or professional mu…
I mostly agree with this sentiment. However, even in the pre-recorded music times there was a pretty clear separation between the music people would play themselves at home and the music they would actively seek out to hear in a more professional environment (churches, concerts etc). When first recording mediums were invented, people were really excited specifically about being able to preserve and listen to the grea…
Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#75This new moment of marketization is interesting to observe from the sidelines. I'm a musician but I've never gotten paid for making music and don't want to be. This way, songwriting and playing music can remain something I do purely for the intrinsic joy of it. And it's not really so long ago that, if you wanted music in your house, you had to play it yourself. I have nothing against recorded music or professional mu…
I could also write my own novels and produce my own TV shows but they wouldn't be as good as what an Orwell or Sorkin could produce.
Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#76Not a bad idea. Finding avenues to rent-seek seems to be the winning strategy, especially with all the cash floating around looking for returns.
Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#77https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5937f2f1bebafb1297678...
Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#78"I don’t believe in material things." Wants to own everything musical and starts up a billion dollar fund to do so.
I think if you are not an overly literal person it makes more sense though. It's social posturing which is meant to mean "I don't like the most extreme elements of consumer culture like designer belt buckles and luxury automobiles". To many people "believing in material things" means that and not what they are literally saying.
It seems like many people find this type of exaggerated speech to be really charismatic which I find really annoying.
Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#79Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How, exactly? I'm fairly certain most of a songs revenue is made by the first year. To go beyond that, you've got to get your song back in the public mind. Bass player with a 70s pop star who's still working and making music here.... I know that his hit songs still generate a significant amount of income for him (I'm not giving figures, but I would be more than happy if I had that much coming in for a full time inc…
That's kind of my point. Getting airplay and being in adverts helps keep his song in the public mind which generates income from the song. He may see it as passive income, but people are doing things to keep that income going. I'm also guessing he didn't start out eight figures in the hole by purchasing his songs from someone else.