Jump to content

Shakira sells 100% publishing of her songs to Hipgnosis


Recommended Posts

Pop culture
46 minutes ago, TasteOfYourLips said:

:ace: And somehow music is still profitable for kpop and kpop industry is still investing large amounts of money in music. Either western labels are doing fear mongering around artists for them to sell their catalogues or are just THAT incompetent to solve whatever problems they have with piracy and streaming by doing 360 deals (which wouldn't surprise me either because they still didn't learn from kpop how to sell physical albums)

This, if music ceased being profitable all these investments firm wouldn't buy everyone and their mother's catalogues

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • selenachris

    5

  • slw84

    4

  • Totami Legend

    4

  • Chromatica

    3

devonedelrey
9 hours ago, selenachris said:

She has enough money to live well. You don’t sell your entire career because of a pandemic when you already have millions and are married to a top soccer player. There must be another reason. 

Shes martied?? Anywho we need a new album 

Link to post
Share on other sites
LatinFreak

I dont know how i feel about this... However shes always been an incredibly intelligent business woman so i think she trusta her decision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jadeabove
18 minutes ago, Pop culture said:

So you can't release music because Shakira sold her publishing? What? :skull:

 

No, no. I will release new music, and I am releasing shortly. Imagine being Shakira or any of those big artists, and just conceding to these "venture capitalists" though. I get it, girl, get yoooo money. But you are also making it harder for all the other artists out there, because in my opinion, it participates to this process of devaluation of music. Granted, Shakira did not create streaming platforms, but pulling the fire alarm on your way out, can influence the whole market. Especially if you are such a huge megastar. Her, and all those legends are sort of sabotaging the industry by doing this, knowingly or unknowingly.

 

Then again, it's nothing against Shakira personally. I grew up with her music and I admire her craft. Others who participate in these sort of transactions make it harder for musicians to eventually do anything worth anything. It's temporary relief, but in the grand scheme of things, I think it just continues damaging the actual value of music and its importance.

 

I just feel like it's conceding. Then again, I could be entirely wrong. As someone pointed out before, Shakira is an incredibly smart business woman. Thus, I believe she is doing what's best for her in this situation, which is completely understandable. I'm just worried about the precedent this creates - and I know she's not the first to do this.

Edited by jadeabove
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Attitude said:

Internet piracy and streaming really ruined the music industry huh. :skull:

That’s good. This way music artists will stop being glamorous rich people who release 2 platinum albums and never have to work a day in their life, they will be regular people with a regular job. 
 

The image of the almighty pop diva who lives in Beverly Hills and wears designer clothes as pijamas is what’s in danger of extinction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dirrtydiana said:

Got chills reading your post.

 

My guess is they want their cash in case the economy collapses again :dancehall:

This makes the most sense. the economy might just collapse this year.

 

I got why the old heads were doing it but Shakira Shakira. 

 

tumblr_pd7jl4zvjw1r1ult6o1_500.gif?resiz

Link to post
Share on other sites
dirrtydiana
1 hour ago, Mr.Link said:

That’s good. This way music artists will stop being glamorous rich people who release 2 platinum albums and never have to work a day in their life, they will be regular people with a regular job. 
 

The image of the almighty pop diva who lives in Beverly Hills and wears designer clothes as pijamas is what’s in danger of extinction. 

This logic is beyond stupid.

 

For one if you sell one over million of anything you’ll be very wealthy. So it’s not the singers fault the mass consumers make them rich.


today they mostly make money from touring. Now that that’s virtually over and they could possibly become “normal workers,” brands and companies will still shower them with multimillion dollar contracts.

 

Lastly, if being an artist paid so little, we would be robbed from wonderful music so everyone loses.

 

I believe teachers, doctors, EMTs are under paid but that’s a totally different conversation.

 

6 minutes ago, slw84 said:

This makes the most sense. the economy might just collapse this year.

 

I got why the old heads were doing it but Shakira Shakira. 

 

 

tumblr_pd7jl4zvjw1r1ult6o1_500.gif?resiz

 

Or maybe the %1 is gathering their coins to move to Mars lol :eli:

Link to post
Share on other sites
St. Francis
5 hours ago, Soda Pop Queen said:

.... and another one. This is wild but given the rapidly diminishing business profits over the past 20 years, I'm not surprised. Pandemic has only highlighted just how much the business side of music has been dying.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
St. Francis
1 hour ago, Mr.Link said:

That’s good. This way music artists will stop being glamorous rich people who release 2 platinum albums and never have to work a day in their life, they will be regular people with a regular job. 
 

The image of the almighty pop diva who lives in Beverly Hills and wears designer clothes as pijamas is what’s in danger of extinction. 

But what about independent artists? Non-mainstream artists? Some just genuinely care about their craft and consider that their #1 priority compared to others (mainly the new artists nowadays) who are chasing clout and quick cash over quality music.

 

 

OT: It's also been a wake-up call for all those celebrities who spend recklessly. They better learn from this pandemic and start budgeting or storing some cash in an account for a rainy day or another world mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, VOSS said:

Damn this is crazy & deserves its own thread if it doesn’t have one

This truly needs its own thread. that statement is very logical. Too logical almost to be a hit thread here.

12 hours ago, SinnerCity said:

Streaming has impacted negatively the business for musicians, they make more money selling off their 'rights' than by keeping them. It's a ****ed up situation but the industry is changing drastically and it will not be profitable as it is in years from now. Artists are a business after all.

After streaming the next thing will make it even less profitable.

 

It makes sense for established artists to make this move.

 

The big payday moments are not here because how people consume media is totally different. they are not shelling out millions for a tv ad when people don't watch tv like that anymore.

 

They are not shelling out millions for magazine ads when people aren't buying anymore.

 

Even online, they don't even charge alot for advertising but it's just not as profitable anymore.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr.Link said:

That’s good. This way music artists will stop being glamorous rich people who release 2 platinum albums and never have to work a day in their life, they will be regular people with a regular job. 
 

The image of the almighty pop diva who lives in Beverly Hills and wears designer clothes as pijamas is what’s in danger of extinction. 

You have no idea just how much time and effort it takes to make a great record or video or tour if you think every artist in the world can be someone working a regular job who does it "on the side".

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jadeabove said:

No, no. I will release new music, and I am releasing shortly. Imagine being Shakira or any of those big artists, and just conceding to these "venture capitalists" though. I get it, girl, get yoooo money. But you are also making it harder for all the other artists out there, because in my opinion, it participates to this process of devaluation of music. Granted, Shakira did not create streaming platforms, but pulling the fire alarm on your way out, can influence the whole market. Especially if you are such a huge megastar. Her, and all those legends are sort of sabotaging the industry by doing this, knowingly or unknowingly.

 

Then again, it's nothing against Shakira personally. I grew up with her music and I admire her craft. Others who participate in these sort of transactions make it harder for musicians to eventually do anything worth anything. It's temporary relief, but in the grand scheme of things, I think it just continues damaging the actual value of music and its importance.

 

I just feel like it's conceding. Then again, I could be entirely wrong. As someone pointed out before, Shakira is an incredibly smart business woman. Thus, I believe she is doing what's best for her in this situation, which is completely understandable. I'm just worried about the precedent this creates - and I know she's not the first to do this.

If you invest stock in a building that's on the verge of collapse why keep your investment in there. 

Cash out and she can invest in real estate, funding her own shows/projects and get back end profits. It's the newer artists that are screwed.

3 hours ago, Mr.Link said:

That’s good. This way music artists will stop being glamorous rich people who release 2 platinum albums and never have to work a day in their life, they will be regular people with a regular job. 
 

The image of the almighty pop diva who lives in Beverly Hills and wears designer clothes as pijamas is what’s in danger of extinction. 

that will never go away as even instagram fake celebs do that. This reeks of being bothered by wealth and rich people and instead thinking this will make them more regular when their investment portfolio is at a different level than average.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, St. Francis said:

But what about independent artists? Non-mainstream artists? Some just genuinely care about their craft and consider that their #1 priority compared to others (mainly the new artists nowadays) who are chasing clout and quick cash over quality music.

 

 

OT: It's also been a wake-up call for all those celebrities who spend recklessly. They better learn from this pandemic and start budgeting or storing some cash in an account for a rainy day or another world mess.

They are reducing themselves to onlyfans and degrading things for a quick buck. It's sad but money screams wealth whispers

2 minutes ago, Protocol said:

You have no idea just how much time and effort it takes to make a great record or video or tour if you think every artist in the world can be someone working a regular job who does it "on the side".

It really must bother some to see wealthy and rich have options...they won't be normal even with this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, slw84 said:

 

It really must bother some to see wealthy and rich have options...they won't be normal even with this stuff.

...what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
dirrtydiana
5 hours ago, Protocol said:

You have no idea just how much time and effort it takes to make a great record or video or tour if you think every artist in the world can be someone working a regular job who does it "on the side".


This. 
 

I would hate to live in Mr. Links world. That user would rather singers careers be more of a regular job without even thinking about the countless of families who depend on a singers single era doing well. Everything from makeup artists, set design, lighting, camera crews, the hundreds of employees it takes to do one concert, would disappear. Not to mention the stimulation to the economy the cities get when artists tour there. The restaurants, hotels, transportation, they all benefit from singers being in high demand. 
 

 

plus it’s like wining the lottery. Not everyone who picks up a mic makes it big. 

Edited by dirrtydiana
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TasteOfYourLips said:

:ace: And somehow music is still profitable for kpop and kpop industry is still investing large amounts of money in music. Either western labels are doing fear mongering around artists for them to sell their catalogues or are just THAT incompetent to solve whatever problems they have with piracy and streaming by doing 360 deals (which wouldn't surprise me either because they still didn't learn from kpop how to sell physical albums)

 

Honestly I think this is what's going on. It's the same companies buying up music catalogues. Something fishy is definitely going on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
katykater

It looks to me like selling stocks before the crash or she needs money now because of the tax men or overspending without reserves. High income people can still be broke if they can't control their spending.

 

Quote

Whole swaths of the music business, like touring, shut down in 2020, but music publishing has had a stunning bull market. The action has all been in catalogs: bundles of songwriting copyrights that, if popular and long-lasting enough, can collect steady, predictable streams of income. Thanks to plentiful investment coffers, rosy projections about online streaming and, less happily, the need of many artists to raise cash during the pandemic, there has been a flurry of deals this year, often at staggering prices. Stevie Nicks sold a majority share in her catalog for $80 million. Bob Dylan signed away his entire corpus of more than 600 copyrights for a sum estimated at $300 million to $400 million.

The company that has driven the most transactions, and done so the fastest, is Hipgnosis Songs Fund, which Mercuriadis introduced on the London Stock Exchange in July 2018. In just two and a half years, Hipgnosis has spent about $1.7 billion scooping up the rights to more than 57,000 songs from an enviable list of writers. Hipgnosis owns, in full or in part, 188 songs by Jack Antonoff, a collaborator of Taylor Swift; 197 by Debbie Harry and Chris Stein of Blondie; 814 by RZA of the Wu-Tang Clan; 315 by Mark Ronson; 1,068 by Dave Stewart of Eurythmics; and production royalties for 108 tracks by the hip-hop producer Timbaland.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/arts/music/merck-mercuriadis-hipgnosis.html

Corona times means shopping time for the investors and there are artists who has to raise money now without touring.

 

Quote

Hipgnosis company did not disclose financial details of the sale, but it typically pays the equivalent of 15 years' royalties up front.

 

With tax relief, many walk away with "about 25 years worth of money in one fell swoop", the company's founder, Merck Mercuriadis, told the BBC last year.

 

That provides the artists with immediate financial security, while Hipgnosis - which owns the songs in perpetuity - hopes to profit by building new revenue streams for the music via film and TV licensing, merchandise, cover versions and performance royalties.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55645178

For the artists there is a choice between cashing out the commonly used valuation of 15x the yearly royalties or keeping it and hoping that the royalties in the next 25 years are still good. Selling means to them financial security, not having to run the risk of no one is using their music in the future.

 

What's in the deal for Hipgnosis?

 

Quote

"These great, proven songs are very predictable and reliable in their income streams," he explains.

 

"If you take a song like the Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams or Bon Jovi's Livin' On A Prayer, you're talking three to four decades of reliable income."

 

He says hit songs are a stable investment because their revenue isn't affected by fluctuations in the economy.

 

"If people are living their best lives, they're doing it to a soundtrack of songs," he explains. "But equally, if they're experiencing the sort of challenges we've experienced over the last six months, they're taking comfort and escaping in great songs.

 

"So music is always being consumed and it's always generating income."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54423918

Music is crisis proof and people consume more music in bad times. A classic can produce 3 to 4 decades of reliable income while they paid 15 years of royalties.

 

Quote

The idea for Hipgnosis came to Mercuriadis in 2009, around the time Spotify launched in the UK.

 

"I could see that streaming was going to change the landscape, and was going to make the music industry very successful all over again," he says.

 

He points out that the industry's traditional benchmark for success is the platinum record - which, in the US, represents a million sales. It sounds impressive, he says, until you realise that a hit film like Toy Story 4 sold 43 million tickets.

 

"So that immediately tells you that, while the vast majority of the population may enjoy music, very few of them put their hand in their pocket and pull out a tenner and pay for it."

 

Streaming changed that, he says, because previously passive consumers were willing to pay a monthly subscription. "Instead of the focus being that one in 350 people would actually pay for music, the focus is on all of them."

 

An estimated 88 million people subscribe to streaming services in the US, more than a quarter of the population.

 

Unlike most music companies, Hipgnosis isn't focused on finding the "next big thing". A third of the songs it owns are more than 10 years old, and 59% are between three and 10 years old. Fewer than 10% are newer releases.

 

"The one thing that they all have in common is that they are culturally important," says Mercuriadis.

 

Before streaming only 1 in 350 people would spend on music. Since streaming, more than a quarter of the population is paying a monthly subscription and they want to tap into that streaming money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, brainmaniac said:

This sounds like a silly short-sighted move. This is the kind of stuff artists are warned not to do, and yet Shakira does it :deadbanana2::toofunny2:

 

Oh well, I guess she knows the value of her catalogue and it must not have been much, if she thought selling it was more profitable than holding onto it

I don't think so.

Bob Dylan and Nile Rodgers have sold their catalogues too, do you think theirs weren't profitable? She simply received all her future royalties at the same moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SinnerCity said:

Streaming has impacted negatively the business for musicians, they make more money selling off their 'rights' than by keeping them. It's a ****ed up situation but the industry is changing drastically and it will not be profitable as it is in years from now. Artists are a business after all.

I knew I hated streaming for a reason :fan:  **** streaming

Link to post
Share on other sites
brainmaniac
13 minutes ago, Riot said:

I don't think so.

Bob Dylan and Nile Rodgers have sold their catalogues too, do you think theirs weren't profitable? She simply received all her future royalties at the same moment.


They are much older though, so I understand them wanting to cash out, and enjoying that money in the last years of their life 
 

Shakira is still relatively young though, so I thought she would have more faith in the future potential of her catalog. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
OnlyRealMusic.

I wonder what Prince would think about this. Sad to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Electric Youth

Only the biggest South American female artist of all time, aka Shakira

 

giphy.gif

 

but hopefully that doesn't mean no albums in a near future. I mean, homegirl thought in retire before El Dorado :rip: 

 

giphy.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Cash

Get those coins queen :clap3: 

 

I don't think this is that deep. She's never been too invested in the technicalities of music rights and stuff like that. She's even said she doesn't care if pirate her music :michael: Her selling her publishing rights doesn't mean she doesn't care about her craft.

 

This could even be a good thing for stans, since the new owners might actually want to promote her catalogue more which she never really did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...