Did the PSB website change?

For general discussion of Pet Shop Boys topics.
Message
Author
Dog
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu 30 Oct 2003, 11:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Did the PSB website change?

#16 Post by Dog »

daveid wrote:The thought occurs that their entire catalogue might now be under one banner and that x2 is now part of it.
It would certainly make managing the back catalogue easier, rather than licensing certain tracks backwards and forwards.
Woof.

Propertius
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon 29 Dec 2003, 6:45 am
Contact:

Re: Did the PSB website change?

#17 Post by Propertius »

When the Boys left Parlophone in 2013 the music business was moribund. Nobody wanted to invest even in the big companies. Now there’s a Vogue for music investments because streaming has matured enough that it seems clear what the revenue flows will look like over the long term, and even though music is a low-growth industry, it appears to be stable and predictable, which certain classes of investors prefer over high-growth, high-risk. The value of legacy acts is that they’re work is the most predictable asset (to be quite crass about it—“Opportunities,” anyone? “Shopping”?). Reliable declines in revenue are still ok, as the predictability is what counts.

Keep in mind there are usually three types of rights in the catalogue: producer rights, songwriter rights, and rights to the recording itself. Parlo owned some, maybe all, of the pre-1990 recording rights, may have owned some post-1990 rights, but the Boys have, as far as I know, always owned the publishing (songwriter) rights. But companies like Merck Mercurial is’ s have lately been buying those songwriter rights, in Merck’s case for about 13x the one-year revenue value. In other words, it’s selling your ownership outright for 13 years’ revenue in advance (and then nothing). For older acts more money in their 60s and 70s may seem more attractive than continual revenue into their 80s and 90s, at which ages nobody wants to be worried about managing intellectual property. Ironically, with an upfront payment from a low-growth, low-risk music company, an artist who’s comfortable enough can put the money into a high-growth, riskier asset and make out much better than the investors in the now company-owner catalogue. Risk has its rewards.

But all of this is speculation about the Boys and the new website copyright. Maybe they e just gone back to a regular record company deal without selling the song rights—though songs are such a comparatively hot commodity right now that I do suspect a rights sale has happened. A lot of established acts have been doing this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], jasonjohn and 29 guests