• Queen (2024) - $1.2 Billion

• Michael Jackson Estate (multiple deals between 2016-2024) - between $600 Million - $1.4 Billion

• Bruce Springsteen (2020) - $500 Million

• Bob Dylan (2020-2022) - $450 Million

• Pink Floyd (2020) - $400 Million

• Sting (2021) - $300 Million

• Phil Collins (2022) - $300 Million

• Irv Gotti x Murder Inc. (2022) - $300 Million for a 50% stake

• Katy Perry (2023) - $225 Million

• Justin Bieber (2023) - $200 Million+

• Red Hot Chili Peppers (2021) - $140-150 Million

• Justin Timberlake (2022) - $100 Million

• YMCMB (Nicki, Drake & Wayne catalogs pre-2020) (2020) - $100 Million

I've had this on my mind for a while, as giving someone else part-rights or complete rights over your music for a short-term cash windfall seems very dumb and misguided to me, especially when the valuation they give you might lowball how much your catalog is expected to earn (like Queen pre-biopic). Has anyone actually gotten out of their debts owed or paid back a label they owed money to? Can anyone shed some light?

(On the other side, you have Jay-Z, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, J. Cole, The Weeknd, and Beyonce, who either own their entire catalog or most of it / purchased their catalog, and don't seem interested in selling to the highest bidder.)

Why keep them? There's only a handful of artists from the 1980s who are truly known among youth today, and in the next decade we're going to see that happen to the 90s as well.

Seems like good business unless you're certain that you'll be famous for the next 50 years to ditch your masters and sell them to ultra-wealthy firms who are desperate to make records into the 21st century version of throwing around your wealth with paintings. It's not a coincidence that the most expensive catalogs are the ones that the wealthiest generation is nostalgic for and not what is actually being listened to currently.

Edited January 17Jan 17 by Sheep

They need the money to keep living their lavish lifestyle.

It's a huge windfall that will last them the rest of their lives. They also still own the publishing and get payouts from that too so it's not like they are completely stripped of their music and income stream and ownership. They could own their masters and carefully oversee its distribution to maximize returns or significantly enrich themselves by sitting back and do nothing, for most it's probably an easy choice. I think for artists that choose to keep theirs it's more about symbolism and ownership tbh

Not y'all acting like selling masters is automatically "smart"…

Masters are forever money. Streaming + syncs + reissues don't stop and a lot of these catalogs only get bigger with time. And ownership = control. Once you sell, you don't get to cry when your song is in a random ad or used by a brand you hate.

If catalogs were gonna be "worth less later," investors wouldn't be throwing stupid money at them right now. They know exactly what they're doing.

Artists sell because they want the bag NOW, don't wanna deal with rights, or are in their retirement era. Cool. But others don't sell because they care about legacy, control, and not letting corporations play with their life's work.

Anyway… owning your masters = power. Not everything is about a one-time check

11 minutes ago, MariahC said:

Not y'all acting like selling masters is automatically "smart"…

For the people like Mariah or Beyoncé or Prince or Michael Jackson who fought their entire careers for ownership and tend to be requested across various media channels for activations, advertisements, television shows, and movie soundtracks... it seems like a smart business move to keep them.

Are we the only ones to think about it that way?

Because the value of your masters factors in like 75 years after you are dead. But what value does that have once you are dead? You are better off selling your masters at the present value and benefit from the value while you are still alive.

The better question is why not sell your masters?

Because you will eventually die and your masters will go to companies anyway. Why not benefit from it while you're alive?

Why not ? Legacy is cute but once you're dead, you won't be able to fully enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Quick cash. It's the same as pawning jewelry.

It's also not always a bad idea. For artists that don't want to tour, like Justin Bieber, he's going to end up making way more money in his lifetime from selling his masters than he would from holding onto them. The companies that buy the masters will make more in the long term, but it'll take a significant amount of time. There's no guarantee you'll even be alive by the time your catalog makes what you sold it for.

1 hour ago, trainsskyscrapers said:

Katy Perry (2023) - $225 Million

Still crazy to me that her catalog was worth this much when she only has two really big albums

Realistically you'll make more selling your masters than owning them. You think Katy owning masters would have made her 200million anytime soon?

The owe debt they need to pay off and can't wait.

A lot of those are old artists already. They will die before they get that type of money from royalties

And people like Bieber blew all their money already

For Ciara it was free

debt and more pocket change x

I would sell my masters for a high price & take 10% of any sales from the catalog in the futre after being sold that way I'm always paid for the rest of my little life. Someone like Katy & Justin B could make that happen!

Edited January 17Jan 17 by Appletree

35 minutes ago, Eternium said:

Quick cash. It's the same as pawning jewelry.

It's also not always a bad idea. For artists that don't want to tour, like Justin Bieber, he's going to end up making way more money in his lifetime from selling his masters than he would from holding onto them. The companies that buy the masters will make more in the long term, but it'll take a significant amount of time. There's no guarantee you'll even be alive by the time your catalog makes what you sold it for.

... but that money is already gone, Biebs may have paid off Live Nation but still owes Scooter Braun, and is now waiting for his wife's beauty brand to make BIG money to pay off his remaining debts.

My guess is that any musician that sold them spoke with various professionals, such as tax attorneys, accountants, etc, to find out whether it would behoove them or not. Like let's be real, the numbers in the OP are astronomical. There's a reason why the vast majority of lottery winners take the lump sum payout instead of the 30 year pay that's typically much higher. Money now is better than money later. You can't invest what you don't have

OP forgot to include Iggy Azalea

3 hours ago, MariahC said:

Masters are forever money. Streaming + syncs + reissues don't stop and a lot of these catalogs only get bigger with time. And ownership = control. Once you sell, you don't get to cry when your song is in a random ad or used by a brand you hate.

You probably vastly overestimate the revenue streaming generates for most legacy acts most less over the remaining lifespan of a legacy artist which is what they would care about.

A one time nine figure cheque would probably generate much better yields in the stock market.

i think we're in a bit of a catalog sale bubble so i suspect younger artists are probably being encouraged by the people overseeing their money to sell now and cash out while the market is hot.

Idk. I guess some artists are not overly precious about their music or don't see the long-term battle with tptb as worth it. A lot of them have money constantly coming in from publishing deals anyway. Some of them also have other streams of revenue outside of music.

5 hours ago, byzantium said:

Because the value of your masters factors in like 75 years after you are dead. But what value does that have once you are dead? You are better off selling your masters at the present value and benefit from the value while you are still alive.

I would probably have my music proceeds sent to a specific account and eventually roll it into a trust so my current family, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren can still receive any royalty funds in perpetuity... but you do you. We're looking for generational wealth with consistent passive income deposits over here.

5 hours ago, trainsskyscrapers said:

For the people like Mariah or Beyoncé or Prince or Michael Jackson who fought their entire careers for ownership and tend to be requested across various media channels for activations, advertisements, television shows, and movie soundtracks... it seems like a smart business move to keep them.

Are we the only ones to think about it that way?

Y'all have a point when it comes to black artists masters. Historically, they have always been the most ****** over in the music industry so them managing to gain ownership of their recordings means a lot. It's symbolic. The downside to this is, they are forever chased in some way because of it... oftentimes to their deaths. TPTB won't allow them to finish a game that was never set up for them to participate in, let alone win. It wouldn't surprise me if this is the real reason why Bad Gal has not put out another album since Anti. Obtaining your masters as a black artist puts a target on your back.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat nervous about Lady Carter who is, for the most part, as autonomous as one can get while still being platformed on a large scale. I hope she never falls out with Sony/Columbia because if she decides to stop distribution with them, it might be a wrap I fear. Some get onto her about not promoting her newer music enough but maybe there's a deeper reason why she's tries to stay off radar as much as possible, even when her singles are hits. She won't even use any of Sony's budget for music videos anymore. She was paying for a lot of the visuals last decade out of her own pocket. She don't want them to double back later and say she owe them any money. I surmise this is one of the reasons daddy had to go. He was allegedly misappropriating funds.

Edited January 18Jan 18 by Soda Pop Queen