$300 million is not enough.
Dylan’s deal includes 100 percent of his rights for all the songs of his catalog, including both the income he receives as a songwriter and his control of each song’s copyright. In exchange for its payment to Dylan, Universal, a division of the French media conglomerate Vivendi, will collect all future income from the songs.
Scary!
Dylan has obviously been warned Biden is threatening to raise the capital gains tax by 100% from the current rate of 20% to about 40%. If Dylan waited til that happened, it'd cost him $60MM more in added taxes on his $300MM.
Posts
153 comments:
"$300 million is not enough."
"Scary."
I don't get it. Songs are literally no different than a rental apartment building.
Plus, of course, you don't see what Bob is seeing in terms of the trends in his income. This could very well be the deal of the century if the NPV of his catalog is <$300M.
Also, honestly, remember the 80/20 rule. Probably 80% of his songs generate about a buck a year in income.
-XC
All is as foreseen... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-50ZYvHPw
When I first saw the story, I thought Ann was the buyer.
Huge risk taken by the buyer.
"$300 million is not enough."
At some point you've made enough money.
Lay lady lay was okay. The rest is overpriced. I prefer Melanie's version.
1. How to analyze this without info on his yearly income from those materials?
2. What's the tax hit on that going to be? Where is his domicile?
All copyrights should end with the creator's death.
Perhaps he's pulling a David Bowie and cashing out before "cashing out". After all, he's pushing 80, how many monster hits are left in his quiver?
What's the public benefit of a law that makes these transactions possible?
Bob Dylan will be 80 next year. Why not take a nice lump sum and not have to fool with the details?
Expat is on the right track.
How much does Dylan see in royalty income from Sirius/XM and Spotify? AM/FM? Ha!
The best income is probably from movies and commercials.
I'd have to see the numbers and trends, but $300m looks like too much to me.
But Bob can't take it with him and better for him to get it now.
Now maybe he'll have enough cash to visit Madison and hang out with Ann and Meade. He might even buy! A little Christmas concert at Meadehouse with Heaven's Door whiskey served.
take the money and run.
If he leaves it to his 6 children, that’s $50 million per child, and he gets to dictate the terms of the deal rather have it be dictated by his heirs. Makes sense.
Dylan has obviously been warned Biden is threatening to raise the capital gains tax by 100% from the current rate of 20% to about 40%. If Dylan waited til that happened, it'd cost him $60MM more in added taxes on his $300MM.
I wonder if Dylan voted for Biden?
Person A has an item valued by person B. Person A sets a price. Person B agrees to the price. Person A transfers the item to Person B.
Both agreed to the price and the terms.
Why would this be scary?
One of your (mercifully few) blind spots is Dylan.
Obviously a tax move before Biden is inaugurated. I'm doing similar things myself, only on a much, much smaller scale. I have been planning this for a while in case of a Dem president and I'm sure he has as well - first step was move to FL to eliminate state income taxes, then taking profits on real estate and securities portfolio. I'm trying to minimize taxes while Slow Joe and the Ho are looting the treasury and to minimize tax revenue as possible for their next four years. Now looking for places to park cash.
Resistance, Baby!
Smartest guy who ever picked up a harmonica. Is value likely to be more or less 5 and 10 years from now? And where will he be then? What is the best reason for not selling now?
how many monster hits are left in his quiver?
42
i pinged a friend who is in the licensing business (commercials, movies, TV) and she says the Dylan catalog is super cheap except for a few songs. She expects that to change a LOT and that you'll hear fewer Dylan songs in pop culture.
-XC
Perhaps he's pulling a David Bowie and cashing out before "cashing out". After all, he's pushing 80, how many monster hits are left in his quiver?
Yah- only scary to people that loathe finance. In fact, this is a competent element of an estate plan, ensuring he's comfortable with the rights to his music after his death.
I'm full of soup at 8.39 am nailed it.
Everything written in the 20th century should be public domain now.
Soup - 8:39
You are probably 100% correct.
everybody who knows and cares about Bob Dylan's body of work is already owning each song in multiple formats: LPs, cassettes, CDs, DVDs with live versions. The most tech savvy ones have it torrented in one big blob.
Interesting question how much will those people be willing to pay again for the song they already own. Markets estimated it at $300mm. We'll see
Everything written in the 20th century should be public domain now.
And all businesses created in the 20th century should be public domain now.
I am Laslo.
I foresee a lot of movies coming up with a Dylan song playing over the end credits.
I am Laslo.
Everything written in the 20th century should be public domain now.
Well, at least the clock has started ticking once more, and we are getting yearly tranches from the 1920s now.
It's not scary.
It's the marketplace.
Since November, Stevie Nicks has sold her publishing rights for @$100 million.
Dennis Miller sold his longtime California home for $50million, announced he is ending his podcast and will not be actively seeking further work.
These people are successful because they had ability ~then either saw or took opportunities others, with similar or more ability, did not. They acted then, as they are now. They have not threatened to "leave the country". They pay attention and quietly do what they think is best.
Elections have consequences. Higher taxes and anti-individual policies are coming.
Bob is old. $300 million is enough for him. He can't take it with him...
He doesn't have too many years left to spend that money. I wonder where it will end up. Is he close with his kids?
His fans are aging as well. Expect some huge and expensive box sets, and then his ten most familiar tunes will live on in movie soundtracks and commercials for another 20 years.
300 million seems like a lot for a guy who was played out decades ago. What do Dylan's sales look like? How many people till care about his music?
As a songwriter, Dylan has lots of hit songs out there that were covered by others, e.g. 'All Along the Watchtower'
About 105,000 Dylan Covers
Typical NYT “journOlism” as practiced in the 21st century:
1. Not one estimate of the current average annual revenue Dylan enjoys from publishing/licensing
2. Not one estimate of ANY prior income Dylan enjoyed from publishing/licensing (save a poorly explained $100 advance way back in ‘60 or so
3. Not one estimate of future revenues for Vivendi from Bob’s work
4. What exactly is the POINT of their article and multimillion dollar screaming headlines?
David Bowie did something similar, but instead of a single buyer, bonds were issued backed by his songs (Bowie Bonds) and he got paid via the sale of the bonds. As I recall, he moved to Ireland for the year when this transaction took place, and so paid Irish taxes (very low) on this one time sale. Brilliant.
Now that he's done exchanging all precious gifts he doesn't need to take his diamond ring and pawn it (babe).
He's invisible now, he's got no secrets to conceal. But now he's got $300 million, and that's not nothing -- it's a lot to lose.
How does it feel, ah how does it feel?
I'd rather have the money for my own choices and charity.
Our corrupt World Order D-hack chi-com google-government can go to hell.
I wonder if he'll complain later about the deal the way Taylor Swift did about hers.
This reminds me of a story Dolly Parton told about dealing with Colonel Tom Parker. Apparently they were discussing the possibility of Dolly doing the song she wrote, "I Will Always Love You" (many years later made super famous by Whitney Houston) as a duet with Elvis but the Colonel demanded half the publishing rights to the song and Dolly wouldn't do it. She said it made her sad and she cried because she really wanted to sing with Elvis but not at that price. Because Dolly is one smart cookie.
The Beatles catalogue sold for something like $50Million. Granted that was awhile ago and there's a bunch of controversy over that but still, $300 Million is a lot of money.
Michael Jackson did very well on his purchase in the mid 80's of the recording company that controlled the Beatles songs. Sony is likely to do very well on its purchase of Jackson's rights to his and the Beatles songs (and many others). Beatles and MJ are currently more commercially viable than Dylan, but who knows?
The Wall Street Journal pointed to the strategy in the sale of the Stevie Nicks songwriting catalog:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stevie-nicks-sells-stake-in-songwriting-catalog-11607095635
The general thinking is that song catalogs produce steady income in times where equities markets are unstable. But yes, the fact that so many sales are occurring so quickly makes one think that there is a tax strategy at work as well.
I agree with Althouse; $100 million for Stevie Nicks and $300 million for Bob Dylan? I'd make it $1 million and a billion.
I told the story before about how the Editor of my 150 year old family newspaper "had to" sell us out to a distant corporate news chain because of Death Taxes. To have stayed in their setup would have been an enormous cost to the company and the family upon that Editor's death.
This reminds me of that kind of straightforward calculation.
Never really listened to Bob Dylan, never really cared to. This deal sounds like something where whomever bought the deal was destined to lose. From what I've gathered... people who like Bob Dylan really like his stuff because it speaks to them, much more so than a normal song might trigger certain emotions. To the people who like Bob Dylan, his works ring true. They lose that luster, I imagine, when some corporation repackages them in special limited releases, movies, and commercials. While again, I've never really listend to Bob Dylan, and don't have much personal stake one way or the other. I do feel bad for those people who did like his stuff.
Jaydub - me too. Selling my last income property end of December and plan on not making any significant income for the forseeable future. Why help pay for the craziness that is going on?
Also Bob Dylan making a business decision like this, makes me think he is contemplating his demise. I hope he is well.
Wait. Dylan wrote songs for money?
Wow, that's a huge bargain to me, but fair value given Dylan agreed.
Democrats live for confiscatory punitive tax rates. It's one of the top ways to control control control..
Makes Chi Coms happy too.
Blogger I'm Full of Soup said..."Dylan has obviously been warned Biden is threatening to raise the capital gains tax by 100% from the current rate of 20% to about 40%. If Dylan waited til that happened, it'd cost him $60MM more in added taxes on his $300MM."
You forgot the Obama 3.8% surtax on large capital gains, though this surtax will likely not disappear with any Biden legislation.
He's one of the greats, but tastes change. I wonder if his catalog will be as durable as that of Richard Rodgers or Irving Berlin. I'm about Dylan's age so I'll never know.....Of the big five, Kern, Gershwin, Rodgers, Berlin and Porter, Gershwin is the most beloved, but Rodgers is the big winner in terms of air play. Of the rock bands, the Beatles are the undoubted champs, but I'd nowadays put the Beach Boys ahead of the Rolling Stones for the place position.....Does anyone still care whether Glen Miller's band had the better sound than Tommy Dorsey? Maybe oblivion will overtake them all......I'm pretty sure that sometime in the next century people will listen to Dylan's voice and marvel that he made his living as a singer.
I love old Bobby Zimmerman, and I am capitalist and I support artists who can capitalize on the value of their work -- good for Bob!
Question, though, and maybe it's a stupid question: Bob is 79. What's he gonna do with $300 Million? Make his adult kids really rich? I reckon so.
If he doesn't need the money, wouldn't taxes be lower if it went into his estate (tax basis rises)? Or does he suspect the income won't survive the early Boomers?
you'll hear fewer Dylan songs in pop culture.
No, the reverse. We're going to be swamped.
It's interesting that "clasic rock" stations play songs from as long ago as Glen Miller was when I started listening to rock.
Miller's catalog still sounds good, but as R. A Lafferty observed, there is only so much room in history, and all but "In The Mood" is generally forgotten.
To some extent The Beach Boys are a reverse example, as some songs which had fallen out of the public perception such as Do It Again, I Can Hear Music, Dance, Dance, Dance and (the Al single version of) Cotton Fields have actually come back into the canon though intelligent re-issues by Capitol (after a long period of actively hostile packaging).
I don't understand it when people say someone else whom they do not know doesn't need the money. Closest Commie, perhaps.
Another squishy Lily liver libtard totally crushing it in the free market.
Do you think Ramblin Jack Elliott is wondering if he's going to get a cut?
"$300 million is not enough."
As others have noted, he's 80. What part of "you can't take it with you" do we not understand?
Retirement planning has an accumulation phase and a distribution phase. I am struggling to come to grips with this fact myself and finding it hard to shift gears. Looks to me like Bob gets it.
Two thoughts about this:
1. The $300 Million figure was an estimate - so we don't know how much he got. But Dylan has smart money people working for him and my guess is that he got over market price. Mainly because there are a lot of wealthy businessman who are really into Dylan (Charles Koch is, Steve Jobs was) and they would pay a premium to be associated with his legacy.
2. I'm surprised that he's given up control of his songs. He has monetized them in the past for commercials - Victoria Secrets, US automobile manufacturers - but has done so in his own quirky way. He has also allowed his songs to be used in some low budget films, under market price, if he likes the filmmaker. Absent a clause in the contract, he can no longer choose which films get to use his songs.
Agreed. I would guess that the catalog is worth 3-4x times more than that. This is not to say Mr. Dylan is getting ripped off; after all, what's he going to do, at this stage in his life, with the $300Mn other than leave it to his estate?
I see people in my FB feed lamenting. Why? It's his property. He gets to do with it as he sees fit.
Happy for him. Now he doesn't have to scrounge for his next meeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaal.
The only opinion about the price & value that matters is that of Bob Dylan. How can you folks not see and understand that?
Expat(ish) said...
She expects that to change a LOT and that you'll hear fewer Dylan songs in pop culture.
That's pretty much what happened with the Lennon-McCartney catalog once Michael Jackson purchased it. You've got to make the initial investment back somehow, so licensing fees go through the roof.
Correction: two opinions, Bob Dylan's and the person that agreed to pay.
Excellent tax planning.
Creates a revenue stream for his heirs while making the copyrights worthless from an estate tax valuation point. He and then his family control the copyrights so that his music can’t be put into dog food ads but they have no economic value since he assigned the future revenue stream of royalties.
Well done.
If you compare this purchase to what apple payed for beats 🎧 the headphones... yeah Dylan’s catalog was a steal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.engadget.com/amp/2019-05-28-apple-beats-five-years-later.html
"Smartest guy who ever picked up a harmonica. Is value likely to be more or less 5 and 10 years from now? And where will he be then? What is the best reason for not selling now?"
I'm not a big Dylan fan (he's good, don't get me wrong), but I think Teri di Tufo is correct.
I don't think his music is going to become more popular.
The best/easiest way to monetize it would be to do a musical a la 'Jersey Boys,' but that will have to wait post-covid.
As a reference point, Stevie Nicks sold 80% or her catalog recently for $100M.
I think she made a good deal.
As for capital gains, 'regular' folks like us who work in tech live and die by stock options. Paying 20% on a good outcome is OK...no problem. Double it, and it's kind of a killer...
P.S. Sorry, missed that the Nicks deal had been covered.
I think she made out like a bandit : )
How would public domain issues figure into this deal>
They better hurry up and exploit that catalog.
Yeah I can’t understand $80M or $100M for Stevie’s catalog. Maybe she wrote a lot I’m not aware of. Dylan gets a lot of play. I wonder if his share of The Wilburies songs is included.
Good for him. I don't know if it is enough or not. For the songs he sang himself, that number sounds about right. The thing is Dylan wrote many songs that others sang. If he maintained ownership of those rights, then I agree the $300 million sounds low.
Still, he probably isn't growing that portfolio any longer. $300 million today, invested in new ventures that will grow seems like a good deal for him and his family.
Is there such thing as Public Domain any longer? Has Disney fucked up all our copyright laws now?
As I recall, he moved to Ireland for the year when this transaction took place...
Remember all that talk during the Obama administration about the 'double Irish' and inversions and all the corporations contemplating those deals?
About to get very popular again...
LOL $300 million for doing no work. Just getting paid because of your Government Monopoly keeps anyone from using it -forever - without paying you $$. Its good to have friends in Congress!
Copyrights, per the Constitution are supposed be for a "Limited time" and the purpose is to encourage the Arts and sciences. But like everything else its turned into racket where people bribe Congressman to continue their grift.
I can tell you fancy, I can tell you plain
You give something up for every thing you gain
Silver and gold
Won’t buy back the beat of a heart grown cold
"But like everything else its turned into racket where people bribe Congressman to continue their grift."
How dare they keep the rights to something that did not exist before they created it.
Everything belongs to everybody.
I am Laslo.
I remember Paul Simon saying he wouldn't sell out because Midas Muffler was going to use his music for an ad that went something like, "Hello Midas my old friend, it's time to talk to you again".
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
I wonder if his share of The Wilburies songs is included.
Probably not, they're covered by an entirely different publishing entity.
And more, from the Journal, on why the sharp increase in song catalog sales in the second half of 2020:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hot-pandemic-market-music-royalties-11593601200
It's a valuable asset, but it's a little dated to get the kind of play that would pay that off. The main value is in other artists covering the song or their use in other media. I don't think a lot of his songs are being played or bought much anymore, and that will continue to decline. You never know though, he could become a big hit all over again someday. It happens. Still, that's a lot of money even for a popular current artist. God for him. Now pay your taxes, and don't enjoy that money. Just hide in the house like a good boy.
If you personally cover someone's song and post it on social media, do you have to pay? I see people do that all the time, and I also see people say they can't play this or that song, but they can show you how to play it.
As I mentioned upthread, there actually is a public domain, and things enter it every year due to the fact Congress did not yet again amend the law. So last year we got the first volume of Churchill's The World Crisis, which was 1923, so I guess 1924 works are up next.
I'm not sure how it works for music, but The Beach Boys have been doing yearly releases of previously unissued material to retain the copyright, for instance Sunshine Tomorrow
If Stevie Nicks' catalog is worth $100 million, Dylan's price must be a significant multiple of that.
No, he can't take it with him. So what? The most fun you can have with money is giving it away -- not to endow dependents and hangers-on but for projects that are meaningful to you.
I'm glad you posted about this since it lead me to this far more interesting news. Non Dylan-obsessives speculating about "big box sets" as part of this deal, well, in the words of Jeremy Irons as Claus Von Bulow: "You have no idea." :-)
When Dylan dies, the sales on his songs and albums will skyrocket for at least a year.
The copyrights on all his songs will last for 70 years after his death.
If it was up to me copyright would only last 20 years, after which the material would enter the public domain. The durations for patents and trademarks seem fine to me.
Trademarks are forever, aren't they?
Trademarks last as long as they are used. They are indefinite.
Many of Robert E. Howard's "Conan" stories are in the public domain, but the name "Conan" is tradmarked, so, as is currently happening, you can publish a comic book adapting Howard's stories, but you can't use the word "Conan" on the cover, so they call it The Cimmerian. (And do use the name "Conan" inside, of course).
Laslo Spatula said...
"But like everything else its turned into racket where people bribe Congressman to continue their grift."
How dare they keep the rights to something that did not exist before they created it.
Everything belongs to everybody.
***********************
If every inventor were to have perpetual exclusive rights to his invention, we would all be freezing in the dark.
The purpose of the Constitutional clause granting patents for a limited term of years is to encourage inventors to reveal their inventions to the public and thereby advance our overall scientific and technical knowledge---in return for which you get exclusive rights to prevent others from making, using or selling your invention. and to collect royalties or license fees from those who do.
If it were otherwise, there would be little incentive to invent and market anything, as others could simply come out with knock-offs, as the Chinese have been doing for years.
When the patent lapses, your invention enters the public domain and others can freely copy it. Think how the price of Viagra has come down.
(but I think copyright has become a grift. Try publishing Martin Luther King's public speeches in a history book, and see what happens to you. A court has ruled those speeches a "performance", and thus protected by copyright. Snort.)
I wonder if his share of The Wilburies songs is included.
Probably not, they're covered by an entirely different publishing entity.
According to Wikipedia, Dylan's Special Rider publishing company held the rights to "Dirty World," "Tweeter and the Monkey Man," and "Congratulations" on the first Wilbury album.
Miller's catalog still sounds good, but as R. A Lafferty observed, there is only so much room in history, and all but "In The Mood" is generally forgotten.
"Pennsylvania 6-5000?"
mccullough said...
Trademarks last as long as they are used. They are indefinite.
***********
But you can lose your ability to enforce a product trademark if the mark becomes associated with all goods of that type. Aspirin and Thermos are examples.
Here's a list of examples where that's happened:
https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/15-product-trademarks-that-have-become-victims-of-genericization/
The matter of monetary royalties is one thing -- Dylan most certainly does not need the money.
Artistic control over his creations is something else entirely. That is the most important aspect of the sale.
Now, someone else can bastardize and twist his works.
"No, he can't take it with him. So what? The most fun you can have with money is giving it away -- not to endow dependents and hangers-on but for projects that are meaningful to you."
Yes, and that requires you to actually have the money.
Hey, I thought Bobby Z was a man of the people, not materialistic, not a greedy capitalist ... what's he need all that moolah for? To give it to poor people, donate to charities, start a defense fund for murderers?
"$300 million is not enough. "
Yeah, it's too much.
It's 2020. Dylan's catalog is not worth a huge amount, and is getting less valuable every day, as his boomer fans die off.
People born after 1970 do not care about Bob Dylan to speak of.
And his songs aren't even covered very often anymore, especially not by bands that aren't themselves ancient.
(Re above, no, people could already bastardize Dylan songs. Nobody can stop people doing that; selling the rights to them just controls who gets the royalties.
Anyone can twist anyone's song any way they want at any time. They just gotta pay royalties if it's similar enough to not count as new work.
And frankly the covers were always superior to the real thing. Would anyone even remember All Along The Watchtower if Jimi Hendrix hadn't covered it?)
I keep seeing comments that he's old, he's almost 80. He's only a year and a half older than Joe Biden.
"A Brief History of the Ownership of the Beatles Catalog"
Michael Jackson bought the entire Beatles catalog as well as some other songs in 1985 for $47.5 million ($114.9 million in 2020 dollars). But the catalog changed hands a few times since then. The Billboard article suggests that in 2006, the catalog was estimated to be worth around $1 billion.
Is Dylan's catalog worth $300 million? Who knows. He's pushing 80. He can't take it with him. And nobody listens to folk music anymore.
The value in the catalog isn't for the songs Dylan recorded as much as it is for the rights to allow other artists to cover them. Artists from a wide range of genres have already done many covers. It seems reasonable to me for him to let that be someone else's concern now.
"but I think copyright has become a grift. "
Indeed. But it is the most successful who benefit from the grift.
The One-Hit Wonders need the checks.
I am Laslo.
I'm Full of Soup said...
I wonder if Dylan voted for Biden?
Probably like his ardent fan, Our Hostess ... didn't bother to vote.
80% of Dylan is complete garbage
MadisonMan @ 9:56: I see people in my FB feed lamenting. Why?
I'm not as much of a Dylan fan as some (cough-AA), but I bought a couple of his albums in my youth which are still part of my collection. I suppose that many people see him as an artist and not motivated by "things" but by the love of creation. To those folks, this capitalistic move is probably disappointing.
Mary Beth said, "I keep seeing comments that he's old, he's almost 80. He's only a year and a half older than Joe Biden."
Yeah, that youngster who "won" the election. Wouldn't you agree he's "old" as well?
Hell, Dylan would probably make a better president than Biden. At least he still seems to have all his marbles.
Sample 10 random sets of lyrics from here --> 305 words per song * 600 songs -> about $1639.34 per word.
Blogger Mark said...
"The matter of monetary royalties is one thing -- Dylan most certainly does not need the money.
Artistic control over his creations is something else entirely. That is the most important aspect of the sale.
Now, someone else can bastardize and twist his works."
Here I'll help you. When there's money involved it's all about the money.
Interestingly in the MFO we're not seeing increased cap gains selling ahead of a Biden presidency...
...there's covid 'Do we sell the flat in Paris?' kind of stuff but not tax related capture...
"Try publishing Martin Luther King's public speeches in a history book, and see what happens to you."
The King family are a bunch of leeches.
I don't know if any of them has done five minutes of work since MLK died.
Thanks Jeff.
...a few began the vetting process but they're white males. Rumor is they won't be getting asked...
Just another example of freakin' white privilege!
Blogger Joe Smith said...
"Try publishing Martin Luther King's public speeches in a history book, and see what happens to you."
The King family are a bunch of leeches.
I don't know if any of them has done five minutes of work since MLK died.
I don't know much about the money the King Family gets from copyright, but I find it hard to feel bad for the major Scholastic Book publishing companies, or anyone associated with them.
I once tried to make myself appreciate Bob Dylan by spending money on the Biograph box set. Perhaps that is what some billionaire is doing here?
According to a Minneapolis paper, "The deal does not include rights to Dylan’s own recordings of his material."
Also:
"The price was not disclosed, but is estimated at more than $300 million."
- NY Times
This is a meaningless statement which, considering the source, should not be given any credence whatsoever.
Stevie Nicks just got 100 mil
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2020/12/stevie-nicks-sells-majority-of-her-song-catalog.html?page=all
"They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me"
so: 301 million dollars, now.
I am Laslo.
"I don't know much about the money the King Family gets from copyright..."
The King family will sue you faster than Disney...
If MLK, Jr. had a teat, they've been sucking on it for 52 years.
I remember an interview from 1969 or so of a teenybopper standing in line to buy tickets to a Dylan concert. "I've been a big fan," she said "ever since he was writing songs for Sonny and Cher."
"I've been a big fan," she said "ever since he was writing songs for Sonny and Cher."
I think the key to getting rich in music is to have a writing credit, whether you sing the song or not.
I've read stories of modern singers insisting on a writing credit (even if they did nothing) before they will sing a song (kind of like the Elvis story).
They are big enough that a struggling writer will almost be guaranteed a hit record so they give in.
You'd be amazed how many huge songs Willie Nelson wrote that others performed.
On the tax issue, it looks like Musk will make good on his threat to leave CA and go to TX. He’s selling his CA homes and is tired of the insane lockdowns of the Cali elites. And the insane taxes.
On the tax issue, it looks like Musk will make good on his threat to leave CA and go to TX.
I wonder if he in hindsight regrets his relationship, and child (not to say he regrets his child, just the situation) with the artist Grimes. As an engineer first and a businessman he must always deal with what is, and what isn't. Seeing her twitter stuff about gender, whatevers, and their raising a genderless child, makes me think he felt forced to make a strategic concession in that regard.
cf-
Y'all got rooked.
Proper estate planning can include things like transferring assets before one's passing to your intended beneficiaries. Selfishness and a lack of desire to predict how lone one will live is why it does not happen often.
I believe the sale must close by the end of the year to avoid the Biden tax hit.
Just for context: I know someone that got $120m for the sale of his business back around 2000. He hadn't spent his life building it, like Nicks and Dylan have.
"Dylan has obviously been warned Biden is threatening to raise the capital gains tax by 100% from the current rate of 20% to about 40%. If Dylan waited til that happened, it'd cost him $60MM more in added taxes on his $300MM."
The Beatles sold their catalog for tax reasons, a famously bad deal.
What a great country where people repeat tax advice given by a stranger who calls himself "I'm Full of Soup".
Rolling Stone predicted a flurry of these types of transactions shortly after it became clear that Joe Biden had won the election:
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/capital-gains-songwriting-catalog-sales-1086647/
Bob said...
Yeah, that youngster who "won" the election. Wouldn't you agree he's "old" as well?
I think Biden is too old for such a stressful job but it's not his age that made me think he was a poor choice. I think the voters were correct in rejecting him the multiple times he's run before and cannot fathom why they didn't overwhelmingly reject him this time.
Royalties are not subject to capital gains or to social security taxes.
Section 1221(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides, in effect, that gains on the sale of copyrights by the person whose efforts created the copyright are not treated as capital gains, but as ordinary income.
What I really want to know is what kind of soup?
Rabel makes a great point.
A number guessed at by the NYT = probably bullshit.
My favorite soup is Tomato Rice.
My dear aunt used to say "Oh they are so full of Soup" when we were kids. I think we figured out what she really meant.
If Biden gets elected , that 300 million won't buy you a loaf of bread in 10 years.
sean said...
"Section 1221(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides, in effect, that gains on the sale of copyrights by the person whose efforts created the copyright are not treated as capital gains, but as ordinary income."
Yes, but there is an exception specifically for musical compositions (such as Dylan's work product) which can be treated a capital asset and their sale treated as a capital gain at the discretion of the creator.
The country music people got that put into the tax code.
The bidding always started at $600 million until the singing started.
It's not my area of expertise but what I remember from various classes is that you can't get capital gains treatment for items you personally created. I'd guess there is already a corporate entity to which he contributed or sold his rights.
It's hard to imagine the buyer getting their investment back. After all, his songs were only really important to people in their 60's and older.
Are millennial women really gonna buy more tampoons just because the TV commercial has "It's alright ma, I'm only bleeding" playing in the background.
I don't think his music is going to become more popular.
Given what has passed for “talent” and songwriting the last two decades (at least), that is a crying shame. I’ll listen to any of Dylan’s stuff before I’d insult my ears with this modern musical dreck. With a few exceptions.
Having said that, the only thing that saved the only live Dylan show I ever saw (2009) was John Mellencamp’s set. Of all people. In all the concerts I’ve seen since 1967, Dylan’s show was only worsted by the Clash in 1982. They absolutely SUCKED!
I saw Dylan in Charlotte in the early 2000s, after Love & Theft, I think. He couldn't sing worth beans, but man he had a rockin' band! It was enough for me to overlook the croaks.
Surveying the out put of pop artists over the last 30 years, I'd say it's safe to say that nothing in this past period comes close to the overall quality by the sixties Beach boys (Brian Wilson), the Beatles (Paul and John), the Rolling Stones (Mick and Keith), of course, Bob D., and even second tier artists such as Fleetwood Mac (Stevie and Lindsay), Eagles (Don and Glenn), and Steeley Dan (Donald and Walter). So, yeah, I'd say the rich catalogs of the previous 30 years (1960-1990) will still be in demand because of the subsequent fallow years (1990-Now)
JMW at 12.04AM
DITTO!
Night after night, day after day
They strip your useless hopes away
The more I take, the more I give
The more I die, the more I live
(Pay In Blood — Tempest)
Post a Comment